Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Robinson AJ considered an interlocutory application by the Legal Practitioner to strike out an application made by the Council of the Law Society of the ACT. The Council had sought security for the costs of an appeal pursuant to rule 5302 of the *Court Procedures Rules 2006* (ACT), and the Legal Practitioner sought to have this application dismissed under rule 5604(b) of the same Rules.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Council of the Law Society of the ACT had established a sufficient basis to warrant an order for security for its costs of the appeal. This required the Court to consider the principles governing applications for security for costs, particularly in the context of an appeal, and to assess whether the circumstances presented by the Council met the threshold for such an order.

Robinson AJ reasoned that the power to order security for costs is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously. The Court applied the established legal principles that an applicant for security for costs must demonstrate a real risk that the respondent will be unable to pay the costs if the appeal is unsuccessful. In this instance, the Court found that the Council had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish such a risk, and therefore, the application for security for costs was not made out.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the Council of the Law Society of the ACT's application for security for costs be dismissed.