New Judgment: Anderson v Shetland Islands Council & Anor  UKSC 7
01 Thursday Mar 2012
On appeal from:  CSIH 15
In an appeal against the refusal of a reclaiming motion, both appellant and respondents each applied for security for their costs of the appeal.
The issue for determination was whether the court should exercise its discretion to make an order for security for costs pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules 2009, r.36(1) in light of the direction in r.4.7.1 of the Practice Direction that such orders would be made sparingly. Inter alia, the appellant’s application was entirely without merit; r.36 made no provision for an appellant to seek security for the costs of an appeal against a respondent. To require an impecunious respondent to give security would be, in effect, to force him to acquiesce in the appeal against a judgment that was in his favour in the court below. Even if it was open to the court to make the order sought, there were no grounds in the instant case for doing so: both respondents being public authorities, there was no question about their ability to meet any costs order made against them and neither had conducted their defences obstructively or unreasonably.