Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Gheewala -v- Compendium Trust & Ors [2005] JRC 112 (16 August 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2005/2005_112.html
Cite as: [2005] JRC 112

[New search] [Help]

[2005]JRC112

royal court

(Samedi Division)

16^th August 2005

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, sitting alone.

Between	Mahesh Shamjibhai Juthabhai Gheewala	Plaintiff

And	(1) Compendium Trust Company Limited, specially appointed Attorney of Mukta Gokaldas Hindocha, widow of Chandrakant Shamjibhai Gheewala	Defendants

And	(2) Mukta Gokaldas Hindocha

	(3) Aruna Bhupendra Gheewala, the legal representative of the Estate of the late Phupendra Shamjibhai Gheewala

And	(4) Madhusudhan Shamjibhai Gheewala

And	(5) Kirtikumar Shamjibhai Gheewala

And	(6) Bharatkumar Shamjibhai Gheewala

And	(7) N. M. Rajani

And	(8) Eleshkumar Chandrakant Gheewala

And	(9) Srikesh Chandrakant Gheewala

And	(10) Mamta Chandrakant Gheewala

IN THE MATTER OF

AND IN THE MATTER OF

Application by the Plaintiff for an extension of time to appeal against the decision on costs of the 4^th March, 2005, given by the Deputy Judicial Greffier.

Advocate S.J. Young for the Plaintiff.

Advocate M.J. Thompson for the Second to Eighth Defendants.

judgment

the bailiff:

1. This is an application by the Plaintiff seeking an extension of time under Rule 1/5 of the Royal Court Rules 1992, to enable the Plaintiff to appeal against an order of the Deputy Judicial Greffier taxing the costs of proceedings before the Royal Court and the Court of Appeal.

2. Those costs were £29,516 in relation to the proceedings before the Royal Court, and £26,801.50 in relation to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. There was a taxation fee of £3,600, which has been paid by the Second to Eighth Defendants.

3. Mr Thompson has rightly drawn my attention to the principles laid down in the English case of Costellow -v- Somerset County Council [1993] 1W.L.R. 256; [1993] 1All E.R. 952, CA where Sir Thomas Bingham MR, as he then was, stated:

"We are told there is some uncertainty among practitioners and judges as to the appropriate practice in situations such as this. It is plainly desirable that we should give such guidance as we can. As so often happens, this problem arises at the intersection of two principles, each in itself salutary. The first principle is that the rules of court and the associated rules of practice, devised in the public interest to promote the expeditious dispatch of litigation, must be observed. The prescribed time limits are not targets to be aimed at or expressions of pious hope but requirements to be met."

4. The Master of the Rolls went on to refer to the second principle which was that the Plaintiff should not in the ordinary way be denied an adjudication of his claim on the merits because of any procedural default. The Master of the Rolls emphasised, however, that neither of these principles was absolute.

5. This is a case where the plaintiff has changed his legal advisers leaving his new counsel to get to grips with a very substantial body of documentation relating to a dispute which has continued over many years. On that basis it seems to me fair to allow an extension of time to permit the Plaintiff to advance his arguments on appeal. In the exercise of my discretion I, therefore, allow the application and will extend time for the filing of a notice of appeal to 2^nd September, 2005. That order is, however, conditional in two respects. It is conditional upon the payment into Court on or before 26^th August, 2005, of the total sum allowed by the Deputy Judicial Greffier that is £58,857.40 together with the taxation fee of £3,600.

6. The second condition relates to security for the costs of the appeal. The plaintiff has been shown to be reluctant to pay the costs incurred in the appeal to the Privy Council against the Order of the Court of Appeal and it was necessary for separate proceedings in England to be instituted to enforce that payment.

7. It seems to me right, therefore, that an order for security of the costs of the Second to Eighth Respondents in relation to this appear be ordered at this stage. It appears to me that the appropriate figure is £15,000 and I order that that sum too be paid into Court on or before 26^th August 2005, as a condition of the extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal.

8. In the interests of good order I should also lay down that in the event that the conditions precedent are met and payments into Court are made and that the Notice of Appeal is filed that the Plaintiff should also lodge his detailed objections to the Order of the Deputy Judicial Greffier by 2^nd September. I also order that the Second to Eighth Respondents file their response to those particulars within 3 weeks that is to say by 23^rd September 2005. I also direct that counsel attend as soon as practicable before the Bailiff's Judicial Secretary to secure a date for the hearing of this appeal. It seems to me that half a day should be sufficient for that purpose. My order is that costs should be in the cause.

Authorities

Royal Court Rules 1992.

Costellow -v- Somerset County Council [1993] 1W.L.R. 256; [1993] 1 All E.R. 952, CA.