Liristis v Danic

In *Liristis v Danic*, the applicant, Mr Tony Liristis, sought leave to appeal against orders made by the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned an application by the respondent for security for costs, and the applicant's subsequent application to set aside a condition imposed by the District Court that he provide waiver as a condition of access to premises. The proceedings also involved allegations of apprehended bias against a judge.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal on several grounds. These included whether the District Court erred in exercising its discretion under s 67 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) to order security for costs, whether there was an arguable ground of appeal concerning apprehended bias arising from a previous professional relationship with the judge and the circumstances of its termination, and whether the condition requiring a waiver for access to premises was lawful.

Basten and Young JJA refused the application for leave to appeal. Their Honours found no error of principle in the District Court's exercise of its judicial discretion regarding security for costs. Regarding the apprehended bias claim, the Court found that the applicant had not provided clear evidence of the circumstances of the termination of the professional relationship and that the conduct of the judge during the hearing did not establish an arguable ground of appeal, particularly as tapes obtained were not tendered. The lawfulness of the waiver condition was also not considered an arguable ground for leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and Mr Liristis was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.