The Court ordered the unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, declining to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event under UCPR r 42.1. The plaintiffs argued the defendant's delay in properly engaging with their substitution request justified a different costs order, but the Court held that the plaintiffs' claim was unsustainable from the outset, they offered inferior security, and history demonstrated they would have commenced proceedings regardless of the defendant's conduct. The principle that a party withholding consent may rely on relevant considerations not initially articulated was confirmed as a further reason costs should follow the event.
The full text is available to signed-in members.