Piras v Egan

[2007] NSWCA 26

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	PIRAS v EGAN & ANOR [2007] NSWCA 26
HEARING DATE(S):	19/02/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 February 2007
JUDGMENT OF:	Bryson JA at 1
DECISION:	The Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE - security for costs in Court of Appeal - review of Registrar's order for cash $25000 deposit by appellant - impecunious while awaiting trial since arrest in 2002 - Italian citizen, no resources, limited visa prevents employment or Social Services - assisted by friend and manages significant expenditure for friend - entitled to large credits on Credit Card accounts - consideration of Special Circumstances SCR Pt.51 r.16 - Order for Security for costs confirmed.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Family Provision Act 1982 Supreme Court Act 1920 s.121(3) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr.42.21, 49.20 Supreme Court Rules Pt.51 r.16
CASES CITED:	Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yalarno Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 136 Porter v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2004] NSWCA 171 Piras v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 396
PARTIES:	Augusto Piras - Claimant Michael Andrew Egan - 1st Opponent Renate Judith Egan - 2nd Opponent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40311/2006
COUNSEL:	D. Smallbone - Claimant M. Bridger - Opponents
SOLICITORS:	Anderson Lawyers - Claimant Robilliard Lawyers - Opponents
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	40311/06
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Registrar Schell
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	09/10/2006

CA 40311/2006

BRYSON JA

MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2007

AUGUSTO PIRAS v MICHAEL ANDREW EGAN & RENATE JUDITH EGAN

Judgment

1 BRYSON JA: By Notice of Motion of 3 November 2006 the claimant, (appellant in the appeal), seeks review of an order for security for costs made by Registrar Schell on 9 October 2007.

2 The Late Roberta Anne Egan died on 21 April 2003 and the opponents, who are her half sister and half brother, obtained Letters Of Administration of her intestate estate. Mr Piras claimed that he was the de facto spouse of the deceased at the date of her death, that he was thus entitled to receive the whole of her estate, and that administration should be granted to him, with revocation of the present grant. Alternatively he claimed provision under the Family Provision Act 1982 and alleged that he had had a close personal relationship with the deceased, alternatively was a person who was part of her household and partly dependent on her. Macready AsJ dismissed the proceedings. Mr Piras’ grounds of appeal make extensive challenges to the trial judge's findings of fact and to his conclusions.

3 The opponents applied for an order for cash security of $25,000 and for a stay of the appeal in the event of default. Registrar Schell made orders to those effects on 9 October 2006 for reasons then published.

4 The power of review exists under Supreme Court Act s.121(3) and is regulated by UCPR r.49.20.

5 UCPR r.42.21 states circumstances in which the Court may order a plaintiff to give security for costs; but that rule is not exhaustive as the Court's powers…