Diakos v Mason

In Diakos v Mason, the appellant, Diakos, appealed against an unsuccessful judgment in a District Court case against Mason. The appeal was made to the Full Court. Mason applied for a security for costs order, considering Diakos' impecuniosity. The appellant argued that the Full Court should give greater weight to his financial status when assessing the security for costs on appeal compared to when the application was made at the first instance. Diakos contended that his prospects of success on appeal were slim, and there was a high risk that Mason would be left without costs if the security for costs order was not granted. The Full Court considered these factors and concluded that the risk of injustice to Diakos if the security for costs order was made could be assessed with greater certainty on appeal than at the first instance.

The court was required to decide whether to grant Mason's application for security for costs, considering Diakos' financial status and the likelihood of success on appeal. The Full Court had to weigh the risk of injustice to Diakos against the risk of Mason being left without costs if the security for costs order was not granted. The court also had to determine if the impecuniosity of the appellant should be given greater weight on appeal compared to when the application was made at the first instance. Furthermore, the Full Court had to consider if the risk of injustice to Diakos could be assessed with greater certainty on appeal than at the first instance.

The Full Court determined that the impecuniosity of Diakos should indeed be given greater weight on appeal than at the first instance. The court also found that the risk of injustice to Diakos could be assessed with greater certainty on appeal. The Full Court concluded that there was a high risk that Mason would be left without costs at the conclusion of the appeal. Therefore, the Full Court made an order for security for costs in favour of Mason. The Full Court considered the financial status of Diakos, the likelihood of success on appeal, and the risk of injustice to Diakos in making this decision.

The final orders of the Full Court were that Diakos was required to provide security for costs to Mason in the amount of $20,000. The Full Court also ordered that the security be provided within 28 days from the date of the judgment. If Diakos failed to provide the security within the specified time, the appeal would be dismissed.