Shanthi Devanand

The court considered two motions: the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial list and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for significant periods of delay and failed to demonstrate that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to restore and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for delay, awarding costs to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who resides in India.

The plaintiff argued that he was impecunious and had a meritorious claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a good chance of success due to a serious limitation period defence, as the action was commenced over five years after the accident.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 in security for costs.