The Court was asked to determine applications by Societe Generale SA, which was the respondent to appeals which the two appellants had been permitted to bring against orders made against each of them for payment to the bank of US$49m. The first appellant was a limited Saudi Arabian partnership and the second appellant was a general partner of Saad and owned 90% of its share capital. One of the bank’s applications was for a condition to be imposed upon the continuation of each of the appeals that the appellants should pay the award of US$49m into court; to which the appellants each responded that any order for payment into court would stifle their appeals.
Held: A condition, which it proceeded to impose, for their joint and several payment into court of (only) $5m would not stifle their appeals. In reaching this conclusion Aikens LJ punctiliously addressed the factors identified by the court as relevant in the Hammond Suddard case.
Judges:
Rimer, Aikens LJJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 695
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Societe Generale Sa v Saad Trading and Another ComC 5-Oct-2011
. .
Applied – Hammond Suddard, Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Limited CA 18-Dec-2001
The appellant sought staying the order for him to pay costs pending the results of an appeal, and the respondent sought security for costs in fighting the appeal, and a striking out in default of payment, and for security for payment of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As SC 2-Aug-2017
At first instance the appellant had dishonestly assisted another party to defraud the respondent, and ordered payment of substantial damages. The defendant, non-resident, sought to appeal, and the respondent asked the court to order payment into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.459688
