The defendants brought a motion seeking leave and an order requiring a corporate plaintiff to post security for costs in a construction lien action.
Although the court accepted that the defendants had established grounds under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the plaintiff had not proven impecuniosity with sufficient evidence, the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs.
The motion had been brought after significant unexplained delay, the defendants had not complied with earlier court-ordered undertakings, and their counterclaims arose from the same facts and were substantially larger than the plaintiff’s claim.
These factors militated against granting security for costs.
The motion was therefore dismissed.
