Eustice v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

The respondents, Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, Mr Frank Pangallo and Ms Faith Okoegwale, brought an interlocutory application against the appellant, Benjamin Andrew Eustice, seeking an order that unless the appellant provides security for costs in the sum of $50,000, his appeal be stayed. The respondents were defendants in a defamation action brought by the appellant, who sued them in relation to an article broadcast by the first respondent on the ‘Today Tonight’ program in November 2012. The article, produced by the second respondent and featuring the third respondent, alleged that the appellant had misled the third respondent in the sale of second-hand motor vehicles. The appellant claimed that the articles conveyed defamatory imputations about him, but the trial judge found that seven of the eight pleaded imputations had been made and were justified. The appellant’s claim was dismissed, and he now appeals the decision.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant should be required to provide security for costs as a condition of continuing with his appeal. The respondents argued that the appellant’s appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and that he should be required to provide security for costs to protect them from the risk of incurring substantial costs if the appeal were to fail. The appellant argued that the requirement for security for costs was inappropriate in the circumstances of the case, and that it would have a chilling effect on his right to appeal. The court had to balance the respondents' right to be protected from unmeritorious appeals with the appellant's right to appeal a decision of the trial judge.

The court held that the appellant’s appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, and that there were substantial grounds for the appeal. The court found that the appellant had a genuine prospect of success on the appeal, and that the requirement for security for costs would have a significant chilling effect on his right to appeal. The court also noted that the appellant had already incurred substantial costs in pursuing the appeal, and that it would be unjust to require him to provide further security for costs. The court held that the requirement for security for costs was inappropriate in the circumstances of the case, and that the appeal should not be stayed.

No orders for security for costs were made. The appeal was to proceed without the requirement for security for costs.