Al-Suleimany v Standard Chartered Grindlays Trust Corporation Ltd

CourtRoyal Court
JudgeThe Bailiff
Judgment Date27 April 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] JRC 58
Date27 April 2005

[2005] JRC 58


(Samedi Division)


Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiffsitting alone.

Shuayb Khammas Al-Suleimany


Abdullah Khammas Al-Suleimany
Standard Chartered Grindlays Trust Corporation Limited
First Respondent


Transworld Aviation Holdings Limited
Second Respondent


Transworld Aviation Limited
Third Respondent


Mohamed Rashid Abdullah Al Fannah Al Araimi
Fourth Respondent

Advocate P.C Sinel for the Representors.

Advocate F.B. Robertson for the First Respondent.

Advocate L.J. Springate for Fourth Respondent.

(The Second and Third Respondents did not appear and were not represented).


Macon v Quérée [2001] JLR 187 .

Tomes v Coke-Wallis (14th January 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/10] .

Glazebrook v The Housing Committee of the States of Jersey (13th November, 2002) Jersey Unreported 2002/217 .

Application before a single judge for leave to appeal from the Fourth Respondent against the costs order dated 8 th February, 2005.

The Bailiff

This is an application by counsel for Mohamed for leave to appeal against the order for costs which I made on 8 th February, 2005. Unfortunately the short judgment which I delivered at the time giving my reasons for that decision was not recorded.


The Greffier's note, and that note is confirmed by the recollections of counsel, shows that I stated my conclusion that the conduct of the Representors became unreasonable on 12 th June 2004. It was clearly on that basis that I disallowed the application for the costs of the Representors to be paid from the Trust Fund with effect from that date.


The reasons for my conclusion that it was not appropriate to order the costs of the First Respondent, the Trustee and Mohamed from that date to be repaid to the Trust Fund were not recorded in the Greffier's note.


The submissions of all counsel this morning have, however, helped to refresh my memory as to the rationale for that decision. I am conscious that applying the thinking set out in Macon v Quérée [2001] JLR 187 leave should normally be granted unless the grounds of appeal have no realistic prospect of success. Furthermore, where the court's decision on an application will be the final word as with an application for leave to appeal against a costs order the court should err in favour of the application if it is in any doubt as to whether there is a realistic prospect of success.


The legal test is, however, that laid down by the Court of Appeal in Glazebrook v The Housing Committee of the States of Jersey (13th November, 2002) Jersey Unreported 2002/217 where the Court of Appeal stated the principles in these terms:

“In Vekaplast v Picot (1989) JLR 269 , Tomes DB considered (at p. 274 et seq) the statement of the principles relating to the grant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Britannia Building Society v Milborn
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 5 January 2007
    ...States of Jersey [2002] JCA 217 . Macon v. Queree [2001] JLR 187 . Al-Suleimany & Ors. v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Trust Corporation [2005] JRC 058 . The Jersey Law Review for June 2003, “Civil Appeals to the Court of Appeal and All That Jazz” article by Advocate Hanson. Tomes v. Coke-W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT