Batterham v Makeig (No 2)

In *Batterham v Makeig (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application for security for costs of an appeal. The first appellant, who was ordinarily resident outside New South Wales, sought to resist the respondent's application for security.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the term "plaintiff" as used in Rule 42.21 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW) extended to an appellant in an appeal who had not been the plaintiff in the court below. The respondent argued that the rule, which allows for security for costs to be ordered against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside New South Wales, should apply to the first appellant.

Macfarlan JA determined that the term "plaintiff" in Rule 42.21 should be interpreted broadly to include any party who initiates proceedings in the court, which in the context of an appeal, would encompass an appellant. His Honour reasoned that the purpose of the rule is to protect respondents from the risk of incurring costs that cannot be recovered from a party ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction. Applying this interpretation, the Court ordered the first appellant to furnish security for the respondent's costs of the appeal in the amount of $30,000 and stayed the proceedings until this security was provided. The Court also made orders regarding the costs of the parties' respective notices of motion.