Ritson v Leighton

In *Ritson v Leighton*, the first respondent sought an order for security for costs against the applicant in proceedings concerning a judicial review application. The dispute arose from the applicant's failure to provide a residential address, which the first respondent argued was done with intent to deceive, and also sought security for costs on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant's failure to provide a residential address constituted a reason to believe that this omission was made with the intent to deceive, pursuant to rule 42.21 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW). Secondly, the court had to consider whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify an order for security for costs under rule 59.11 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW).

Ward JA dismissed the first respondent's notice of motion for security for costs. The court found that the applicant's failure to provide a residential address did not meet the threshold for an order under rule 42.21, as there was no sufficient evidence to infer an intent to deceive. Furthermore, the court determined that no exceptional circumstances were present to warrant an order for security for costs under rule 59.11. Consequently, the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the motion.