Frigger v Kitay

[2016] WASCA 173

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Security for costs on appeal
4. › Relevant considerations
5. › Whether appellant likely to satisfy adverse costs order
6. › Whether appeal has reasonably good prospects of success
7. › Whether order would stifle appeal
8. › Whether delay in application
9. › Non-compliance with earlier costs orders
10. › Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), pt 5 r 44(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Security for costs on appeal
4. › Quantum of security
5. › Where appellant impecunious
6. › Whether security should be no greater than absolutely necessary

Quick Take

The case provides a concise restatement of the principles governing security for costs on appeal in the WA Court of Appeal, confirming that: (1) the power is unfettered but must be exercised judicially; (2) 'special circumstances' need not be shown; (3) O 25 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) does not apply to appeals; (4) the old common law rule against ordering security against natural persons has no application in appeals; and (5) where an appellant is impecunious, security should not be greater than absolutely necessary. The court also confirmed that non-compliance with earlier costs orders is a relevant consideration, and that even where an order might stifle the appeal, security may still be ordered where the appeal lacks prospects of success.