Eustice v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

In *Eustice v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd*, the appellant, Eustice, sought to vary the terms of an earlier order for security for costs and to reinstate an appeal that had been automatically dismissed. The respondent, Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, opposed these applications. The matter came before Livesey JA in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there were "special reasons" to justify reinstating the appeal, and whether the appellant had complied with the order for security for costs within a reasonable time. The court was required to consider the effect of non-compliance with an order for security for costs on the continuation of civil proceedings.

Livesey JA reasoned that the original order for security for costs, made in June 2020 and not appealed, remained valid in the absence of new circumstances. The court determined that a period of 14 days from the date of the order constituted the maximum reasonable time for the appellant to provide security. As the appellant had not provided security within this timeframe, the appeal was automatically stayed and subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to rule 115.1(5) of the *Uniform Civil Rules 2020* (SA). Furthermore, the court found no evidence presented by the appellant to establish "special reasons" as required by rule 115.1(6) of the *Uniform Civil Rules 2020* (SA) to justify reinstating the appeal.

Consequently, Livesey JA dismissed the applications to vary the terms of the order and to reinstate the appeal.