This Application was an Appeal from a Master’s Order requiring the Plaintiff to pay Security for Costs. Park J. determined that the Standard of Review was reasonableness and the Decision of the Master was only to be interfered with if a palpable and overriding error could be shown.

Park J. noted that the wording of Rule 4.22 is different than the old Rule 593 under which the Master proceeded. Rule 4.22 specifically sets out factors to be considered, including, the ability of the Respondent to pay the costs award and whether an Order for Security would unduly prejudice the Respondent’s ability to continue the Action. “[T]he purpose of security for costs is to ‘ensure the Plaintiffs are able to answer the costs at the end of the proceedings’”. In this instance, the Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the claim would be stifled if security was required. Park J. then considered that the portion of the Master’s Order which dealt with disbursements and determined that the Costs attributable to the required experts was premature. Park J. therefore reduced the amount of security for disbursements.

There was an argument advanced by the Respondent that, pursuant to Rule 9.6(a), the Master’s Order took effect when it was pronounced and that it was binding unless stayed or varied. As the Master’s Order was neither stayed nor varied, the Action was therefore dismissed as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to post security in the time allowed. Park J. exercised his discretion, pursuant to Rules 13.5(2) and 13.5(3), to set aside the Master’s Order in part and provided a new deadline for the Security to be posted.