McVicar v S & J White Pty Ltd

McVicar v S & J White Pty Ltd involves an application for the appellant to provide security for the costs of an appeal to the Full Court. The appellant, McVicar, is seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained in an industrial accident while working on a contract for a third party at the respondent's premises. The District Court dismissed McVicar's claim, and he is now appealing that decision. The respondent contends that "special circumstances" exist to justify requiring McVicar to provide security for costs. McVicar argues that his impecuniosity and limited financial assistance from WorkCover do not constitute "special circumstances" under the relevant rules. The court must determine whether the respondent has demonstrated "special circumstances" warranting an order for security for costs.

The legal issue before the court is whether the respondent has demonstrated "special circumstances" that would justify the court exercising its discretion to order security for costs. The court must consider whether McVicar's impecuniosity and the limited financial assistance from WorkCover are sufficient to constitute "special circumstances." The respondent bears the burden of demonstrating that "special circumstances" exist to enliven the court's discretion. If "special circumstances" are established, the court must then exercise its discretion on whether to order security for costs.

The court found that the respondent did not establish the existence of "special circumstances" warranting an order for security for costs. The court held that McVicar's impecuniosity, which he claimed resulted from the act of the defendant that is the subject of the litigation, does not constitute "special circumstances." Additionally, the court found that the limited financial assistance provided by WorkCover, in conjunction with McVicar's impecuniosity, did not constitute "special circumstances." The court exercised its discretion and concluded that it would not have been appropriate to order security. The application for security for costs was therefore refused.

The court concluded that the application for the appellant to provide security for the costs of the appeal to the Full Court is refused. The court found no "special circumstances" that would justify the exercise of its discretion to order security for costs. The respondent's application was dismissed, and no security for costs was ordered.