Clivery and Conway (Security for Costs)

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an appeal concerning an application for security for costs. The applicants, Clivery and Conway, sought to appeal a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court. The respondent, who had been successful in the original proceedings, sought security for the costs of the appeal.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the applicants had demonstrated that they had "no reasonable prospect of an adequate recovery" from the respondent, which would be a ground for refusing security for costs. The Court also had to consider the general principles governing applications for security for costs, particularly in the context of an appeal.

The Court applied the principles established in *Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue* (1991) 4 WAR 179, which require an applicant for security for costs to show that the respondent has no reasonable prospect of an adequate recovery. In this instance, the Court found that the applicants had not discharged this onus. The evidence did not establish that the respondent was unable to pay the costs of the appeal, nor that there was any other compelling reason to depart from the usual rule that a successful party is entitled to security for their costs.

The Full Court ordered that the applicants provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal in the sum of $25,000.