Ahmad v Sahore (No 3)

In *Ahmad v Sahore (No 3)*, the appellant, who was unrepresented, sought to appeal orders made by consent. The respondent sought security for costs, arguing that the appellant would be unable to meet any costs ordered against him and that the appeal appeared to be without merit. The matter came before McCallum CJ.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to order the appellant to provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal. This involved considering the appellant's financial position and the apparent prospects of success of the appeal.

McCallum CJ reasoned that the appellant's inability to pay costs if unsuccessful was a significant factor. Furthermore, the Court found that the appeal lacked merit, describing it as "hopeless." Applying the principles governing applications for security for costs, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to order security to be given.

The Court ordered the appellant to provide security for the respondent's costs in the sum of $60,000 within 14 days. It was further ordered that, failing compliance with this order, the appeal would be dismissed. The respondent's entitlement to seek a special order as to costs was reserved.