Case No: A3/2012/1981(A) and A3/2012/2055(C) 

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 139
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MS VIVIEN ROSE)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday 24th January 2013

Before:

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	EC03 Capital Limited and Ors	
Respondent	
	- and -		
	
Ludsin Overseas Limited	

Applicant	

	WHARF LAND INVESTMENTS LIMITED	
Respondent	
	- and -		
	
Ludsin Overseas Limited	

Applicant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
( DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Gregory Banner (instructed by Wallace LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Mr Malcolm Bishop QC (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent in 1981
Mr Stuart Hornett appeared on behalf of the Respondent in 2055
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Lord Justice Aikens:

1.	It seems to me that this is something which might be capable of being resolved between the parties and I thought I would therefore give you my initial impression of where things stand.  First, I think that the amount of security that is being sought is too much.  I think it should be in the region of £80,000.  Secondly, it strikes me that the proper way to deal with it would be to split the security between, as it were, the two groups of appellants.  And thirdly, therefore, despite the contrary arguments that are being made I think there is a reasonable argument that security should be given. I appreciate there are arguments the other way, but at the moment I am inclined to say that there should be some security.  It would be £40,000 each and there should be four weeks in which to provide it.

2.	That is my initial “take” on things.  It is obviously not a final one.  I am open to argument both ways, as it were, but it did strike me that if you had my thoughts on that, given that there is another case to come on, it would give you an opportunity to take stock.

MR BANNER: Well we are most grateful for your Lordship's preliminary consideration.

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS :  I emphasise that it is preliminary.

MR BANNER : Of course. May we then withdraw and –

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS :  Of course.  That is why I wanted you to come in now so that you could have that opportunity..

(matter adjourned)

MR BANNER : Your Lordship. We are most grateful for your indulgence and we have come to terms.  It may assist if I just introduce everyone because there is some difficulty, as I understand it, as to who is who.  My learned friend Mr Bishop QC appears for ECO3 Capital, my learned friend Mr Stuart Hornett is for Wharf Land Investments and I appear for Ludsin, the applicant in both applications. I am pleased to inform your Lordship that the parties have agreed terms broadly as your Lordship proposed or suggested.  That is to say on each application the respondent to the application should provide £40,000 within 28 days of today, though that is provided on what I will call the usual terms as to security for costs.  That is to say we will take the terms set out in the application notice and transpose them into an order and costs of both applications are reserved to the court hearing the substantive appeal.  We will draft an order.

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS :  Would you?  That would be very helpful to assess if you could do a draft order.  Well, I am very grateful to all of you for that and seeing what I hope is common sense.  Thank you all very much for dealing with it so efficiently.

MR BANNER: I am grateful to your Lordship for his preliminary indications.

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS :  Thank you all so much.