Pablo Star Ltd v Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company [2009] EWCA Civ 616 (20 May 2009)

Pablo Star Ltd v Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company [2009] EWCA Civ 616 (20 May 2009)

The court found no exceptional circumstances to set aside permission to appeal, no deliberate misleading by Pablo Star, and that EITC's conduct was oppressive. Security for costs was refused as it would stifle the appeal, and the stay on costs was continued. Clarification on new evidence was given, subject to Ladd v Marshall tests.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 616
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Pablo Star Limited; Appellant/defendant: Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interim Applications During Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused; appeal to proceed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Security for Costs, Stay of Costs, Incorporation of Terms, Arbitration Clauses, Proper Law of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Security for Costs Stay of Costs Incorporation of Terms Arbitration Clauses Proper Law of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pablo Star Limited

Respondent/claimant

Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interim Applications During Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be set aside under CPR 52.9
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Pablo Star Limited
  3. 3 Whether the stay on payment of assessed costs should be revoked

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no exceptional circumstances to set aside permission to appeal, no deliberate misleading by Pablo Star, and that EITC's conduct was oppressive. Security for costs was refused as it would stifle the appeal, and the stay on costs was continued. Clarification on new evidence was given, subject to Ladd v Marshall tests.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; appeal to proceed.

Orders

  • Application to set aside permission to appeal refused.
  • Application for security for costs refused.