The discretion to order security for costs on appeal under r 670 UCPR is unfettered but guided by five key considerations: (1) the object is to protect against inability to meet a costs order; (2) merits arguments carry less weight than at trial because the respondent has already had a decision on the merits; (3) an undertaking by a director to stand behind an impecunious respondent only counts to the extent it has practical substance; (4) the order should be for no more than necessary; and (5) whether the applicant caused the respondent's impecuniosity is relevant. Receipt of independent legal advice before signing a deed does not necessarily negate claims of unconscionability or duress where the defendant's wrongful conduct left the plaintiff with no practical alternative.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.