Mr D v Ms P [2020] NSWCA 174

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mr D v Ms P [2020] NSWCA 174 Hearing dates: 10 August 2020 Date of orders: 13 August 2020 Decision date: 13 August 2020 Before: Bell P Decision: 1. To the extent necessary, grant leave nunc pro tunc to the Appellant pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) to institute appeal proceedings. 2. Pursuant to UCPR r 51.50(1), the Appellant is to provide security for the respondent's costs by paying into Court the sum of $25,000 or by way of charge over real property or in such other form as may be agreed between the parties which, if not provided earlier by way of charge, is to be paid in two tranches: (a) as to $15,000 by 15 September 2020; (b) as to the balance ($10,000) by the date set by the Registrar for the filing of the Appellant's submissions. 3. The proceedings are listed on 21 September 2020 for directions before the Registrar, or, in the event that the first tranche of security has not been provided, an order for the dismissal of the proceedings pursuant to UCPR r 51.50(2A) may be sought. 4. The Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion for security for costs. 5. No order as to costs of the Appellant's Notice of Motion. Catchwords: APPEAL – leave to proceed under Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) – criteria for grant of leave – meaning of "there is prima facie ground for the proceedings". APPEAL – security for costs – where security for costs sought against an individual appellant – where appellant was defendant at first instance – where appellant currently incarcerated – whether special circumstances existed warranting the grant of security for costs – where, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, the appellant would still be liable to the respondent in a significant sum. Legislation Cited: Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) ss 4, 5 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 53 r 8 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 51.50 Felons (Civil Proceedings) Bill 1981 (NSW) Cases Cited: Application of Dixon Ly [2013] NSWSC 906 Application of Malcolm Huntley Potier [2012] NSWCA 222 Ballard v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2012] NSWCA 434 Brundza v Robbie & Co (1952) 88 CLR 171; [1952] HCA 49 Cameron's Unit Services Pty Ltd v Kevin R Whelpton & Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 46 Chang v Comcare Australia [1999] FCA 1677 Chen v Zhang [2009] NSWCA 202 Clark v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 13 Dugan v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1978) 142 CLR 583; [1978] HCA 54 Elip Pty Ltd v Arch Finance Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 752 Ford v Simes [2009] NSWCA 351 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Gartner v Ernst & Young (No 3) [2003] FCA 1437 Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 70 James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 1) (1985) 9 FCR 442 Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 764 McKane v NSW Police and Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWLC 19 Morris v Hanley [2000] NSWSC 957 Pearson v Naydler [1977] 1 WLR 899; [1977] 3 All ER 531 Porter v Gordian Runoff Limited [2004] NSWCA 171 Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129 Preston v Harbour Pacific Underwriting Management Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 247 Roberts v Department of Justice, Corrective Services NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 310 Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679; [2016] HCA 22 Starr-Diamond v Diamond [2013] NSWCA 7 SW v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 966 Tait v Bindal People [2002] FCA 322 The Airtourer Co-operative Ltd v Millicer Aircraft Industries Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1400 This Morning Pty Ltd v Melhem [2018] NSWSC 1460 Tran v The Commonwealth [2009] FCA 921 Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 143; [2004] NSWCA 136 Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd (2014) 103 ACSR 201; [2014] NSWCA 417 Xenos v FAL Healthy Beverages Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 240 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr D, a pseudonym (Appellant) Ms P, a pseudonym (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: