The Defendants in an Action brought pursuant to the Personal Information and Privacy Act, SA 2003, c P-6.5 (“PIPA”) applied to summarily dismiss the Action, or alternatively for Security for Costs.

Master Prowse held that it was not certain that the Plaintiff’s Claim was barred by a release signed at the time he settled his earlier employment Action against the corporate Defendant, or that the limitations argument by the Defendants would be successful. Accordingly, the issues were not suitable for summary determination. However, the claims against the individual Defendant were not sustainable under PIPA, and the individual’s Application for Summary Dismissal was granted.

Master Prowse considered the factors for a Security for Costs Application as set out in Rule 4.22. The Defendants conceded that there was no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff would not be able to pay a Costs award which might be made against him. Instead, the Defendants only relied on one of the Rule 4.22 factors, being the merits of the Action. Master Prowse stated that the “most important factor in a security for costs application is whether the plaintiff will be able to pay costs which might be awarded against him”; the merits consideration was secondary. In the result, Master Prowse concluded that Security for Costs were not required.