Guernsey Legal Resources

  The court may order a person appealing against the decision of a public authority to give security for any costs he may be ordered to pay, unless he shows that his resources (including any prospective external funding) are sufficient to enable him to meet such an order. If they are not sufficient, the court must balance the injustice to the appellant of stifling a potentially meritorious appeal against the injustice to the public authority of being able to recover the costs of a successful defence. In striking this balance, the court should consider two factors in particular:

  (a) whether the appellant has genuine grounds for appeal, in the sense that there is a substantial basis for them and, although the court need not make an interlocutory assessment of the merits and determine whether the appeal is likely to succeed, it is entitled to inquire into the grounds in sufficient detail to be assured of their genuineness; and

  (b) if the grounds of appeal are genuine, the court will not normally make an order for security which will have the effect of stifling the appeal, especially if the appellant’s impecuniosity can plausibly be attributed to the conduct of the public authority defending the statutory appeal.

  The ordering of security for costs in such a case does not “impair the essence” of the litigant’s right of access to the courts, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6—especially since the practice allows the merits of the case to be examined in taking the decision whether to order security (Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom, [1996] E.M.L.R. 152, applied).