RBP and Ors & DEP

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for security for costs brought by the respondent paternal grandparents against the appellant. The dispute arose in the context of an appeal, where the respondents sought to ensure that the appellant would be able to meet any costs order made against them should the appeal be unsuccessful.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for the costs of the appeal. This required the Court to consider the principles governing applications for security for costs, particularly in the context of family law appeals, and to assess the likelihood of the appellant being able to satisfy a costs order and the potential difficulties in enforcing such an order.

The Court applied the principles established in *Luadaka v Luadaka* and confirmed in *Jones v Jones*, which govern applications for security for costs. While acknowledging that the appeal was brought *bona fide*, the Court found that the appellant was unlikely to be able to satisfy an order for costs if the appeal failed. Furthermore, significant difficulties were anticipated in enforcing any such order, which would have a substantial adverse impact on the respondents. The Court also noted the absence of evidence demonstrating a "strongly arguable case on behalf of the appellant," following the approach in *Pederson v Vega Lira*. Given that the respondent mother was likely to adopt the submissions of the paternal grandparents, the Court determined that it was appropriate to order security for costs in favour of the paternal grandparents.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the appellant provide security for the costs of the respondent paternal grandparents. The mother’s application for security for costs was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to contribute to the respondent paternal grandparents’ costs.