The Court ordered security for costs of $30,000 in an appeal from a probate decision, exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed that while impecuniosity alone is insufficient to warrant security against a natural person, the reluctance to order security is significantly tempered in appeal proceedings where the appellant has already received an adverse determination, as the respondent should not be forced to defend a 'free hit' without prospect of recovering costs. The extensive history of wholly unsuccessful litigation by the appellant, her admitted impecuniosity, and the breadth of the 59-ground appeal were compelling discretionary factors justifying the order.
The full text is available to signed-in members.