A general contractor moved to discharge a supplier’s construction lien, cancel or reduce the security posted to vacate the lien, and discharge a subcontractor’s separate lien.
The court held that the supplier’s lien was properly perfected despite the contractor not being named as a defendant, because the Construction Lien Act does not require joinder of a contractor lacking contractual privity with the lien claimant.
The court also refused to reduce the lien bond posted under s.44, finding the owner’s holdback liability exceeded the lien amount and therefore the full security remained appropriate.
The subcontractor consented to discharge of its lien if the bond was not reduced.
The court discharged the subcontractor’s lien but otherwise dismissed the motion.
