Ward v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd

The applicants, Ward and others, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which ordered them to pay security for costs to the first and second respondents, Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd and others. The dispute concerned the applicants' claim that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) exclusively governed the Court's jurisdiction to order the payment of security for costs, and that the primary judge had erred in exercising their discretion to order such security.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had made an error in the exercise of their discretion in ordering the applicants to provide security for costs. A further issue was whether the UCPR, specifically rule 53.1, exclusively governed the Court's power to order security for costs, thereby precluding any other basis for such an order.

The Court found no error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion, holding that the applicants had failed to establish a "House v The King" error. The Court rejected the submission that the UCPR exclusively governed the Court's jurisdiction to order security for costs, confirming that the Court retained an inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs in appropriate circumstances, even if not explicitly provided for by the UCPR.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the applicants ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.