Jenkins v Martin

The plaintiffs, Jenkins, sought to appeal against the dismissal of their claim by the first instance judge, which was dismissed for want of prosecution and for the refusal to allow the filing of a tenth version of the statement of claim. The defendants, Martin, were the counsel and solicitors who had previously acted for the plaintiffs in an earlier litigation. The appeal was brought before the court to determine the exercise of discretion in an interlocutory matter concerning the security for costs of the appeal.

The central issue for the court was whether security for the costs of the appeal should be ordered against the plaintiffs, given their impecunious status. The plaintiffs argued that their financial situation was a direct consequence of the defendants' mishandling of the earlier litigation. The court needed to assess the prospects of success of the appeal and the plaintiffs' ability to fund the appeal.

The court considered the plaintiffs' prospects on appeal were not good, and their financial status was precarious. It was found that the plaintiffs' impecuniosity did not stem from the defendants' actions but rather from their own financial mismanagement. The court exercised its discretion under relevant legislation to order the plaintiffs to provide security for the defendants' costs of the appeal. The sum of $7,500 was deemed appropriate for each defendant.

The court made two orders. Firstly, within 21 days of the order, the plaintiffs were required to give security for the first defendant's costs of the appeal in the sum of $7,500. Secondly, within the same timeframe, the plaintiffs were to provide security for the second defendant’s costs of the appeal in the same amount, in a form approved by the Registrar.