Zakka v George Elias t/as Cadmus Lawyers

In *Zakka v George Elias t/as Cadmus Lawyers*, the appellant sought to appeal a decision of the primary court. The respondents filed notices of motion seeking security for costs of the appeal, arguing that the appellant was impecunious. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there were special circumstances justifying an order for security for costs under rule 51.50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). This involved considering the appellant's impecuniosity and the potential benefit to the appellant's creditors if the appeal were successful.

Macfarlan JA dismissed the respondents' applications for security for costs. His Honour reasoned that while the appellant's impecuniosity was a relevant factor, it did not, in itself, constitute special circumstances warranting security for costs. The Court considered the potential benefit to the appellant's creditors, but ultimately found that this did not create a sufficient basis to depart from the usual rule that security for costs is not ordered against an impecunious appellant.

The respondents' notices of motion seeking security for costs were dismissed with costs.