If an individual claimant is seeking to litigate an
issue of general public importance there is scope for the court to dispense with the undertaking (see Arden LJ in R (Goldsmith) v Servite Housing and another (2000) 3 CCLR 354).
She remarked that the case might have presented an opportunity for the court to consider two points of
law of general public importance, had it been presented differently:
«In light of constitutional principles of access to the courts, and thus access to justice, the Court considers that the applicants have raised issues which are
of general public importance... As the application may involve the issue of access to justice, and access to the courts, it is a matter of significant importance».
Second, there are degrees to which the requirement may be satisfied; some issues may be of the first rank
of general public importance, others of lesser rank although still of general public importance.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to hear the appeal in this case, because the issue — the proper interpretation of a release containing language standard to many documents — is an issue
of general public importance.
Likewise, where the question is one
of general public importance, the mere fact that the court might have reached a different conclusion is unlikely to render an award «open to serious doubt».