Background
Shamyal Haroon Jamil sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his originating application for judicial review of a South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal finding of professional misconduct. Because the six-month period for commencing judicial review had expired in June 2024, he also needed an extension of time. The appeal was listed for hearing on 11 December 2026.
Jamil, who was self-represented, alleged that newly considered material showed that the Tribunal’s decision had been tainted by perjury and fraud. He relied principally on a 2020 interview transcript and a 2026 solicitor’s letter concerning AB’s access to messages and screenshots. The Medical Board of Australia applied for security for its costs of the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Livesey ACJ granted the Board’s application under r 215.3 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) and ordered Jamil to provide $15,000 as security for the Board’s appeal costs. The Court also ordered him to pay the Board’s costs of the security application.
The Court accepted that requiring security created a real prospect of stultifying the appeal, which weighed against an order. It nevertheless found that the balance favoured security because Jamil lived interstate, had no significant income or assets available to satisfy an adverse costs order, had no assets within South Australia, and already faced a substantial unpaid costs burden. His appeal also confronted formidable procedural obstacles, including obtaining an extension of time and leave to appeal, and its prospects could not be described as particularly strong, although the Court did not determine the merits.
Jamil was required to pay the security into Court by 4:00 pm on 28 August 2026. If he failed to do so, the appeal proceedings would be stayed and the December hearing vacated.
Key Takeaways
- Security for costs on appeal is governed by a broad judicial discretion in which no single consideration is necessarily decisive.
- A real risk that security will prevent an appeal from proceeding weighs against an order but may be outweighed by the appellant’s inability to satisfy an adverse costs order and absence of assets within the jurisdiction.
- In assessing security, the Court may consider the appeal’s apparent prospects without deciding its merits, including procedural barriers that must be overcome before the substantive grounds can be heard.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the South Australian Court of Appeal balances access to appellate review against the risk that a respondent will be unable to recover its costs. Even where security may effectively halt a self-represented appellant’s case, an order may be justified when enforcement risk and weak apparent prospects weigh strongly in the respondent’s favour.
The ruling did not resolve Jamil’s allegations of perjury or fraud, nor did it determine whether leave to appeal or an extension of time should be granted. It addressed only security for the Medical Board’s costs and the consequences of nonpayment.