Hastings v Hastings

In *Hastings v Hastings*, the appellant sought to set aside orders made by Registrar Schell on 22 June 2009, which had granted the respondent's application for security for costs of an appeal. The core of the dispute concerned whether the respondent, who was appealing a decision, should be required to provide security for the costs of the appeal.

The primary legal issue before Macfarlan JA was whether the Registrar's order for security for costs was correctly made, and specifically, whether ordering security would effectively stultify the appeal itself. This required the court to consider the principles governing applications for security for costs, particularly in the context of an appeal, and to assess the potential impact of such an order on the appellant's ability to pursue their appeal.

Macfarlan JA reasoned that the purpose of security for costs is to ensure that a respondent has recourse for their costs if an appeal is unsuccessful, but this purpose must be balanced against the right of a party to appeal. In this instance, the court found that ordering security for costs would indeed stultify the appeal, meaning it would prevent the appeal from being heard. Consequently, the court determined that the Registrar's order was erroneous.

Accordingly, the orders made by Registrar Schell on 22 June 2009 were set aside, and the respondent's application for security for costs was dismissed. The respondent was also ordered to pay the costs of the appellant in relation to that application and the subsequent motion for review of the Registrar's decision.