Al-Suleimany v Standard Chartered Grindlays Trust Corporation Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: The Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] JRC 58
• Date: 27 April 2005

[2005] JRC 58

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiffsitting alone.

Shuayb Khammas Al-Suleimany

and

Abdullah Khammas Al-Suleimany

Representors

and

Standard Chartered Grindlays Trust Corporation Limited

First Respondent

and

Transworld Aviation Holdings Limited

Second Respondent

and

Transworld Aviation Limited

Third Respondent

and

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).

Authorities

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

1 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.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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...