Levy v Bablis

The appeal concerned an application by the respondent for security for costs against an impecunious appellant. The appellant had also failed to comply with court directions and had other outstanding costs. The respondent sought security for costs under UCPR 51.50, arguing that special circumstances existed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to order security for costs against the appellant, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions, given the appellant's impecuniosity, non-compliance with directions, and the existence of an unresolved application for summary dismissal of the appeal. The court also had to consider whether the appeal would be stultified if security were ordered.

Giles JA reasoned that while the appellant was impecunious and had not complied with directions, these factors alone did not necessarily warrant security for costs. However, the existence of an unresolved application for summary dismissal, coupled with the appellant's impecuniosity, created a situation where the respondent should be protected. The court found that the appeal would not be stultified by ordering security. The judge applied the principles governing security for costs, particularly in circumstances where an appeal is arguably weak and there are outstanding costs.

The court ordered the appellant to provide security for the respondent's costs in the sum of $125,000. This amount was to be paid into court in stages: $30,000 initially, with the remaining $95,000 to be paid upon the disposal of the respondent's summary dismissal application. The appeal was stayed pending the payment of the initial $30,000, and further stayed pending the payment of the balance if the appeal were to continue after the dismissal application. The summary dismissal application was adjourned.