Jonathan A. Odumera

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a security for costs order, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court rejected this argument, noting this was a second attempt to appeal the security for costs order and warranted cost consequences.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to each of the two responding defendants.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order upholding a Master's decision requiring them to post further security for costs.

The plaintiffs, who were non-residents and not impecunious, argued the judge misapplied the 'good chance of success' test by conflating it with the summary judgment test and failing to define it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order and holding that the Master and the appeal judge had properly applied the established legal test.