Reynolds v Sharaz

In Reynolds v Sharaz, the plaintiff, Senator Linda Karen Reynolds, brought a defamation action against the defendant, David Sharaz, arising from comments he made on social media. The defendant applied for security for costs, arguing that the plaintiff was not impecunious but the litigation's full cost would likely exceed her capacity to pay. The defendant also contended that the applicable law might not be Western Australian law but rather the law of the Australian Capital Territory or another Eastern States jurisdiction, which would impose additional barriers to the prosecution of a defamation claim. The court found that the plaintiff was not impecunious, and her inability to pay the costs which may be awarded against her was not of itself sufficient to warrant an order for the provision of security. The court also noted that the Constitution provided a strong disincentive to Senator Reynolds to avoid the consequences of any failure to pay costs that she may be ordered to pay to Mr Sharaz. The court was not persuaded that the circumstances of this matter warranted departure from the usual course so as to require the provision of security from a plaintiff who is a natural person and far from impecunious. The defendant's application was dismissed. The court urged the parties to explore means of resolving the dispute without the necessity of a trial, acknowledging that the human cost of litigation can be crippling, sometimes insurmountable.