The Federal Court has ordered an employee on a s457 visa who is appealing the rejection of his discrimination claim to first pay a $30,000 security bond to show he can cover costs if he loses.

The Federal Magistrates Court earlier dismissed the man's claim that his former employer breached the Disability Discrimination Act when it sacked him because he was diagnosed a diabetic in 2007. It awarded costs against him, which the Federal Court's Justice Jayne Jagot noted had not been "taxed" as yet but were estimated to be around $103,000.

Justice Jagot said the appeal costs were likely to be around $45,000, and noted that the employee owned no real estate in Australia, though his evidence - on which he was not cross-examined - was that he had $15,000 in a savings account, a 50% share of a UK property worth $765,000, a $27,500 term deposit and $6000 worth of shares. He had a credit card debt of $7800.

Justice Jagot said that in circumstances where the employee had "already had his day in court and been wholly unsuccessful", it was "intrinsically unfair that he be permitted to pursue the appeal while placing the respondent at risk that any costs order will not ultimately be paid".

This was, she continued, a clear example of the "free hit" to which Justice Spender referred in Tait v Bindal People.

Justice Jagot said she was satisfied that the interest of justice required an order for security - of $30,000 - in the former employer's favour.