England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR LAURENCE COLLINS QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Wednesday 21 March 2001

Wednesday 21 March 2001

1. DEPUTY MASTER JOSEPH: This is an application by Mr Herskovic, the second defendant, who is seeking permission to reinstate an appeal which was dismissed pursuant to an order made by Lord Justice Chadwick on 26 August 1998 for failure to furnish security for the claimant respondent's costs in the sum of £12,000 by 23 September 1998.
2. The original appeal had been set down on 1 April 1998 under the Court of Appeal reference number CHANI 1998/0403. It was an appeal with permission having been granted by the trial judge from a decision of Mr Laurence Collins QC, sitting as a High Court Judge on 4 March 1998 on a summons for summary judgment. The appeal was lodged on behalf of both defendants, Tokenhold Ltd and Mr Herskovic, who at that stage were both represented by solicitors.
3. With regard to the order for security for costs made by Lord Justice Chadwick on 26 August 1998, there was provision in the order for the second defendant, Mr Herskovic, to apply to the court in the event that any application to use the assets disclosed in his affirmation dated 19 July 1998 for the purposes of providing security was refused. Subject to that matter, however, the appeal was to stand dismissed if the security for costs was not provided within the given period.
4. Mr Herskovic filed an application for permission to reinstate on 6 December 2000. It has been pointed out to him in the course of correspondence the very grave difficulties he faces in pursuing this matter some two-and-a-half years after the appeal was dismissed for failure to provide security for costs. Nevertheless, he has indicated that he wishes to proceed with it on the basis he can now provide the security that was ordered some two years or so ago.
5. Mr Herskovic suffers from certain physical disabilities and is being assisted in preparing bundles of documents in support of this application by the Citizens' Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice, who have written to the court on his behalf.
6. However, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant set down this application to reinstate more than three months ago, no bundles have been received. Time cannot continue to be extended indefinitely in a matter of this kind. I propose to give Mr Herskovic a final 28-day period in which to provide a set of bundles in support of this application. I would ask the relevant case section manager to write to the applicant and to urge him at my direction to avail himself of an opportunity to obtain legal advice with regard to this application, possibly from one of the honorary legal advisers attached to the Citizens' Advice Bureau, because of the very grave difficulties he faces in pursuing this matter after this length of time.
7. In providing the bundles Mr Herskovic needs to pay specific attention to the basis on which he is asking the court to reinstate an appeal which has been dismissed for failure to provide security for costs.
8. The order I therefore make today is that, unless Mr Herskovic has within 28 days from the date of the sealing of today's order, filed a set of bundles in the Civil Appeals Office which fully comply with the requirements of the Practice Direction and the terms of the bundle leaflet, a further copy of which will be sent to him with today's order, then his application shall stand dismissed with costs without further order.
9. I would ask the associate to send a copy of today's order to the Citizens' Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice, who are assisting the applicant; so that they are aware of the position as well as the litigation. In the event that Mr Herskovic does comply with the order and a set of bundles is provided, I direct that the application should be listed before a single Lord Justice (if possible Lord Justice Chadwick who has previously dealt with the matter). He should be asked in advance of the hearing whether the respondents should be invited to attend.