Following settlement of a security for costs motion by consent order requiring the corporate plaintiffs to post security into court, the court was asked to determine costs of the motion.
The plaintiffs argued the motion was unnecessary because they had offered undertakings from partners and allegedly accepted settlement proposals involving promissory notes.
The court held that a costs endorsement should not determine the merits of the underlying motion and applied the test of whether the moving parties’ position was clearly unreasonable.
It found the defendants reasonably proceeded with the motion, as the sufficiency of the undertakings and the existence of a concluded settlement were not self‑evident and the plaintiffs failed to provide timely details.
The moving parties, having obtained substantially the relief sought through the consent order, were awarded partial indemnity costs.
