The Applicant sought permission, pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(a), to appeal the decision of Strekaf J.A. (the “Application to Appeal”) which granted Security for Costs to the Respondents in relation to the Applicant’s Appeal of an interlocutory Order granted by a Case Management Judge to a full panel, and dismissing the bulk of the Applicant’s cross-Application (the “Underlying Application”).

Justice Strekaf reviewed some of the considerable factual history in the Underlying Application and the relevant jurisprudence applicable to Rule 14.5. Her Ladyship outlined the test and factors to consider in allowing an Application to Appeal and noted that permission can be granted if the Applicant establishes that there is: (a) a question of general importance; (b) a possible error of law; (c) an unreasonable exercise of discretion; or (d) a misapprehension of important facts.

Justice Strekaf found, inter alia, that the Applicant sought to rely on an Affidavit which contained written argument (which was not properly the subject of an Affidavit), attempted to relitigate the merits of the Costs Award that gave rise to a contempt Order, and provided information that could have been, but was not, provided in the Underlying Application.

Strekaf J.A. further emphasized that the question of whether Security for Costs is appropriate is discretionary, and, given that the Applicant had not demonstrated any important legal issue which was raised by the Decision to grant Security for Costs, the Applicant had not met the applicable test to grant the Application for permission to Appeal, and the Application was dismissed.