A Master granted twenty-six Orders for Security for Costs as against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appealed. The combined amount of Security ordered to be posted by the Master was reduced by $431,655.75, but the success on the Appeal was mixed. The parties appeared before Justice Strekaf to obtain a direction with respect to Costs.

Justice Strekaf referred to Rules 10.29 and 10.31, stating that the Court has discretion in ordering Costs, and that Rule 10.33 provides the factors the Court should consider. Here, the relevant considerations included that: (i) the case involved multiple parties participating on the Appeal in numerous Actions; (ii) the amount in issue on the Appeal was $1.9 million; (iii) success was mixed; (iv) the issue was a matter of considerable importance to all parties; (v) the Appeal raised some novel arguments; (vi) there was cooperation among counsel which allowed the Appeal to proceed efficiently; and (vii) there was no misconduct which would justify a Costs penalty. Strekaf J. held that the parties’ proposals as to Costs were unreasonable, and as such, Her Ladyship apportioned less than what was requested.