In the course of a divorce and matrimonial property Action, a post-nuptial matrimonial property agreement had been held to comply with the formalities required by statute. The Respondent appealed this interlocutory finding, and the Applicant sought Security for Costs pursuant to Rule 4.22. Madam Justice Bielby reviewed each of the considerations prescribed by that Rule, and found none to favour an Order for Security for Costs. Specifically, there was no proven unlikelihood of enforcement; limited evidence as to the Respondent’s impecuniosity; an arguable case on Appeal; as well as both the potential for undue prejudice to the Respondent’s ability to continue the Appeal, and a concern that the Applicant had in fact sought Security for Costs to suppress the Respondent’s ability to pursue the Appeal. As such, the Application was dismissed.