The appellant appealed an order of a Master requiring the appellant to post security for costs.
The Master had found that impecuniosity had not been established, that the appellant’s case did not demonstrate a high likelihood of success, and that no hardship would result even if impecuniosity could not be shown.
Applying the standard of review for appeals from a Master, the court found no palpable or overriding error and no error of law in the Master’s reasoning.
The appeal was dismissed and the security for costs order remained in effect.
