STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES v PAUL BARON NEUMAN SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL Hope AP 7 March 1988 [1988] NSWCA 143 Appeal — security for costs- Supreme Court Rules Pt51 r11 — special circumstances — whether no arguable ground to support appeal is a special circumstance Hope AP On 6 November 1987 Bryson J made a number of orders in proceedings between the State Bank of New South Wales and the present claimant and others. The orders concerned caveats which had been placed upon the title of property of which the present claimant was lessee under an unregistered lease for a term of 99 years. The Bank was mortgagee and exercised its power of sale over the land. It was in those circumstances that it sought to have the caveats removed. In his judgment Bryson J said that the present claimant, who addressed him at length, had suggested, although there was no evidence for any of the suggestions, a number of matters which he put forward as criticisms of the Bank's behaviour in deciding to sell the land. His Honour discussed some of the matters which the claimant had thus put by way of suggestion but concluded there was nothing to suggest there was anything wrong with the way in which the Bank had proceeded in the exercise of its power of sale. In earlier proceedings between the present claimant and the Bank in respect of land the subject of the same lease and mortgage but being another parcel than that the subject of these proceedings, Cohen J on 12 November 1986, also ordered the removal of the caveats. Mr Neuman appealed to this Court against those orders and applied for a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the appeal. This Court considered the claimant's rights in the matter and concluded that he had shown no arguable ground for any error in the judgment of Cohen J, and refused to grant a stay. In my opinion he has shown no arguable ground to support the present appeal which I have earlier given leave to file out of time. The claimant Bank seeks an order for security for costs of the appeal and for a stay pending the giving of that security. R11 of PtS1 requires that there be special circumstances before such an order can be made. In my opinion counsel for the Bank is correct in his submission that the absence of any arguable ground to support the appeal is a special circumstance within the meaning of that rule. In my opinion the orders which it seeks in respect of security should be made. Accordingly, I make orders 1, 2 and 3 in the Bank's notice of motion. I order that the opponent to this motion, Mr Paul Baron Neuman, pay the costs of the application.