Katherine Metcalfe

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order that dismissed her appeal from a Master's order denying leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court found that there were no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, which involved the exercise of judicial discretion.

Furthermore, the issues raised were specific to the facts of the case and not of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to continue a certificate of pending litigation against a property now owned by the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged she was defrauded of the property through improper mortgages and sought to set aside the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the Master's conclusion that the plaintiff no longer had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, as previous court decisions had already conclusively determined the property could properly be sold.

The court also upheld the Master's finding that the equities favoured the defendants.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim.

The court considered whether the successful defendants, Sparkasse Siegen and Thomas Magnete GmbH, should receive costs on a higher scale due to settlement offers, and whether costs should be awarded against a non-party, Mr. Mellema.

The court declined to award higher scale costs, finding the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and their refusal to accept settlement offers was not unreasonable.

It also declined to award costs against Mr. Mellema personally, noting the defendants' awareness of his involvement and their prior opportunities to seek increased security for costs or provide notice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both defendants.

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.