Monty Max Adrianus Cornelis Verlint

The defendant NCO Financial Services, Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff claimed unlawful wage deductions from his employment in India between 2008 and 2009.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of his claim by July 25, 2011, at the latest, when he sent a draft statement of claim to NCO.

The action was commenced in December 2015, more than two years after the claim was discovered.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding delayed discoverability and legal disability due to his psychological condition were rejected due to insufficient evidentiary support, particularly the absence of medical evidence.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action against NCO was dismissed.

Following settlement of a security for costs motion by consent order requiring the corporate plaintiffs to post security into court, the court was asked to determine costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs argued the motion was unnecessary because they had offered undertakings from partners and allegedly accepted settlement proposals involving promissory notes.

The court held that a costs endorsement should not determine the merits of the underlying motion and applied the test of whether the moving parties’ position was clearly unreasonable.

It found the defendants reasonably proceeded with the motion, as the sufficiency of the undertakings and the existence of a concluded settlement were not self‑evident and the plaintiffs failed to provide timely details.

The moving parties, having obtained substantially the relief sought through the consent order, were awarded partial indemnity costs.