Integrated Contractors Ltd. v. Leduc Development Ltd.

Integrated Contractors Ltd. v. Leduc Development Ltd.

Although applicants established a prima facie inability of Leduc to pay costs, the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs because Leduc was brought into the litigation as a defendant and its counterclaim is so intertwined with ICL's claim that requiring security would likely stifle Leduc's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 BCSC 965
Parties
Plaintiff: Integrated Contractors Ltd.; Defendant: Leduc Development Ltd.; Defendant by Counterclaim: L & M Engineering Limited
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil: Construction Lien and Counterclaim / Security for Costs Application (chambers)
Outcome
Applications by ICL and L & M for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Counterclaim, Construction Lien, Arguable Defence, Foreclosure, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Corporate Law Security for Costs Counterclaim Construction Lien Arguable Defence +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integrated Contractors Ltd.

Plaintiff

Leduc Development Ltd.

Defendant

L & M Engineering Limited

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil: Construction Lien and Counterclaim / Security for Costs Application (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants made out a prima facie case that respondent would be unable to pay costs
  2. 2 Whether respondent has exigible assets to satisfy an award of costs
  3. 3 Whether respondent's counterclaim lacks an arguable defence

Ratio Decidendi

Although applicants established a prima facie inability of Leduc to pay costs, the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs because Leduc was brought into the litigation as a defendant and its counterclaim is so intertwined with ICL's claim that requiring security would likely stifle Leduc's ability to defend and pursue its counterclaim; instead the court imposed protective notice and preservation measures on distribution of sale proceeds and left liberty to re-apply.

Court Disposition

Applications by ICL and L & M for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Leduc must give notice to the defendants by counterclaim on the distribution of the net proceeds of sale of the Fort Nelson property
  • Leduc must preserve any funds it receives on that distribution to allow for the notice and 14 days following the notice