Singh v De Castro; Dhaliwal v De Castro; Brar v De Castro

In *Singh v De Castro; Dhaliwal v De Castro; Brar v De Castro*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered appeals filed and served out of time, and a related application for security for costs. The appellants, Singh, Dhaliwal, and Brar, sought to appeal decisions made by the primary judge. The respondents, Mr and Mrs De Castro, sought to dismiss the appeals for non-compliance with procedural directions and also sought security for costs.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether extensions of time should be granted for the filing and service of the notices of appeal, and whether "special circumstances" existed under rule 51.50 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW) to warrant an order for security for costs against the appellants.

Macfarlan JA determined that the appellants' non-compliance with procedural directions did not warrant the dismissal of their appeals, and accordingly granted extensions of time for the steps that had already occurred. Regarding the application for security for costs, his Honour found that the impecuniosity of a natural person, without more, is ordinarily insufficient to constitute "special circumstances" for the purposes of rule 51.50. Consequently, the Amended Notice of Motion filed on behalf of Mr and Mrs De Castro was dismissed.

The Court ordered that the respondents' application for security for costs be dismissed, that the parties' costs of that motion be costs in the appeal, and that the time for the appellants to file and serve their notices of appeal be extended to the dates upon which those steps had occurred.