The plaintiffs appealed a case management master's order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The earlier appeal had remitted the matter for reconsideration of the merits using the correct standard of whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success.” On rehearing, the master concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success and again ordered security for costs.
The Superior Court held the master correctly applied the proper legal test, carefully scrutinized the evidence and prior decisions, and exercised discretion appropriately.
No error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion was established.
