Jamil v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal & Anor (No 2)

[2026] SASCA 88

Supreme Court of South Australia - Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Appeal and New Trial
2. › Procedure
3. › South Australia
4. › Security for Costs
1. Procedure
2. › Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts
3. › Security for Costs
4. › Factors Relevant to Exercise of Discretion
1. Procedure
2. › Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts
3. › Security for Costs
4. › Appellant Residing Outside Jurisdiction
1. Procedure
2. › Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts
3. › Security for Costs
4. › Impecuniosity
5. › Risk of Stultification

Courts will more readily order security for costs on appeal because the appellant has already had the benefit of a judicial determination, though this is qualified where the appellant contends the primary judge effectively determined the matter summarily without proper consideration of the issues.
The absence of assets within the jurisdiction is a particularly weighty factor favouring an order for security, even where there is a real prospect the order will stultify the appeal, where the appellant's prospects on appeal are not particularly strong and multiple procedural hurdles (extension of time, leave to appeal) must first be overcome.
Self-representation and genuine belief in the merits do not preclude an order for security, though they may inform the quantum and timeframe allowed for compliance.