The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for failing to comply with a consent order to post $200,000 in security for costs.
The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal, alleging the respondents' counsel was in a conflict of interest.
The court denied the adjournment, noting the delay and the discrete legal issue on appeal.
On the merits, the court upheld the Master's finding that under Form 56A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an order for security for costs requires payment in cash unless the order specifies another form of security.
The appellants' attempt to file a late, foreign letter of credit covering only one plaintiff was insufficient.
The appeal was dismissed.
