Aoun v Bahri & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1141 (31 July 2002)

Aoun v Bahri & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1141 (31 July 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that the stay of proceedings in the High Court did not affect the appeal, and there was no compelling reason to impose conditions or set aside permission to appeal under CPR 52.9, as the appellant had now complied with the requirements for security for costs of the appeal and payment on account. The appellant's conduct did not amount to a wholesale disregard for the court's order, and he was entitled to seek permission to appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1141
Parties
Appellant: Mohamad Ali Aoun; First Defendant/respondent: Hassan Bahri; Second Defendant/respondent: Costas Angelou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs of Appeal and to Set Aside Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure, Stay of Proceedings, Discretion of Court, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Appeal Procedure Stay of Proceedings Discretion of Court Enforcement of Costs Orders

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Ali Aoun

Appellant

Hassan Bahri

First Defendant/respondent

Costas Angelou

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs of Appeal and to Set Aside Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should set aside permission to appeal unless the appellant complies with a High Court order for security for costs and payment on account of costs
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings in the High Court affects the appeal in the Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Proper construction and application of CPR 25.13(2)(g) and CPR 52.9

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the stay of proceedings in the High Court did not affect the appeal, and there was no compelling reason to impose conditions or set aside permission to appeal under CPR 52.9, as the appellant had now complied with the requirements for security for costs of the appeal and payment on account. The appellant's conduct did not amount to a wholesale disregard for the court's order, and he was entitled to seek permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to provide agreed security for costs of the appeal for each defendant
  • Appellant to pay the sums ordered by the judge on account of costs