University of Canberra v Zierholz@UC Pty Ltd

[2020] ACTCA 45

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Appeal
4. › Impecunious corporate appellant
5. › Whether security for costs should be ordered
6. › Appropriate amount of security
7. › Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1900-1902, 5302
8. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Distinction between trial and appeal
4. › Impecuniosity as ground for security on appeal but not at trial
5. › Whether appellant's claim that impecuniosity caused by respondent is of diminished significance at appellate level

Quick Take

In the ACT, where there is no requirement to show 'special circumstances' for security for costs on appeal, impecuniosity of a corporate appellant is an important factor favouring an order for security, but the court will not order greater security than absolutely necessary. The default position under r 5302 CPR is that no security is payable, but this can be displaced. An appellant's claim that its impecuniosity was caused by the respondent is of diminished significance at the appellate level where the trial judgment is presumed correct.