In appeals against findings of contempt of court, there should be a good reason to order security for costs where such an order would stifle the appeal, because contempt proceedings are criminal in substance and the public interest favours ensuring findings of guilt can be challenged. The mere risk that a successful respondent might have to bear costs due to the contemnor's impecuniosity is generally insufficient. However, the appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that security would actually stifle the appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members.