The Court declined to order security for costs against an impecunious cross-claimant where the cross-claim arose from the same construction contract as the primary claim, finding that the security sought ($186,204.90) was disproportionate to the importance and complexity of a $118,000 joinery dispute, that an order would stifle the cross-claim, and that fracturing the proceedings would be undesirable given the substantial overlap between the claim and cross-claim. The jurisdictional threshold under UCPR r 42.21(1)(d) was established but the discretionary factors weighed against making the order. The Court strongly urged the parties to mediate rather than incur an estimated $1,000,000 in combined legal costs to resolve a dispute worth approximately $280,000 at most.
The full text is available to signed-in members.