Pi v Zhou

In *Pi v Zhou*, the applicant, Mr Pi, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondents, Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao, applied for a stay of these proceedings and for security for their costs. The dispute arose from earlier proceedings in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, in which both parties had obtained costs orders against each other.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the proceedings should be stayed until the applicant paid outstanding costs orders from earlier proceedings, and whether the applicant should be required to provide security for the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal. The Court considered the application of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) r 51.50 regarding security for costs and the existence of "special circumstances" that might warrant such an order.

Gleeson JA reasoned that a stay of proceedings was appropriate given that the application for leave to appeal concerned the same subject-matter and parties as the earlier proceedings, and that the applicant had failed to pay costs orders made against him in those earlier proceedings. The Court also found that security for costs was warranted under UCPR r 51.50, noting that the respondents' unassessed costs likely exceeded the applicant's unassessed costs from the Supreme Court proceedings, and that the applicant's prospects of success on appeal, despite an initial misunderstanding of procedure, were not strong given the credit-based factual findings in the primary judgment.

The Court ordered a stay of the proceedings until the applicant paid the costs of $1,200 ordered on 7 December 2015 and the costs of the summons in proceedings 2016/41912, as assessed or agreed. Furthermore, the applicant was ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal in the sum of $12,000 within 21 days, and to pay the respondents' costs of the notice of motion filed on 20 April 2016.