The appellants appealed an order requiring $550,000 to be paid into court under Rule 45.02, pending resolution of a dispute arising from a house building project.
The respondent claimed monies owed from a promissory note, share of profits, and unpaid wages.
After the appellants sold the house without notice, a caution was registered, then removed in exchange for an irrevocable direction to hold $550,000 in trust.
The appellants sought to set aside this direction, arguing the caution was invalid and the direction was procured by economic duress.
The application judge dismissed the appellants' application and allowed the respondent's cross-application.
The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the agreement was negotiated by counsel, which belied claims of duress or invalidity of the caution.
The court affirmed the application judge's finding that the criteria for a Rule 45.02 order were met, as the respondent claimed a specific fund, raised a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience favored the respondent.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
