Liu v Sha

In *Liu v Sha*, the appellant sought to appeal a judgment against them, but the respondent applied for an order that the appellant provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal. The primary issue before Kirk JA was whether to grant the respondent's application for security for costs.

The court was required to determine whether there were grounds to order the appellant to provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal. This involved considering the strength of the appellant's appeal, the degree of unreality in the claims made, and whether the mere non-payment of a prior judgment debt was sufficient to indicate that the appeal was without merit or that the appellant was attempting to stultify the appeal. The court also had to consider the financial positions of both parties, or the lack of evidence regarding those positions, and whether the respondent's own financial resources should preclude an order for security.

Kirk JA reasoned that while the non-payment of a judgment debt alone was not determinative, the appellant's claims in the appeal appeared to have a degree of unreality when viewed against undisputed facts. The court noted the absence of evidence regarding the financial standing of either party, but this did not preclude an order for security, particularly where the claimant of security might be well-resourced. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs.

Consequently, the appellant was ordered to provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal in the sum of $20,000 within 14 days by payment into court. The appeal was stayed until this order was complied with, and the appellant was also ordered to pay 60% of the respondent's costs of the motion filed on 8 August 2022.