B3/2001/6051
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 426
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE       
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Winstanley)
								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

								Monday 26th March, 2001
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE BENNETT

- - - - - -

In the matter of an application for Security for Costs

SHELL UK LIMITED
Claimant/Applicant

- v -

(1) ADVISORY BUSINESS SERVICES PLC
(2) PETER ROBERT SOUTHGATE
(3) PHILIP SKOROCHOD
(4) DA PHILIPS & CO LTD
Defendants/Respondents

- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

MR D PRESTON (Instructed by Messrs Mackrell Turner Garrett, London WC2E 9EH) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

MR G PLATFORD (Instructed by Messrs Bowling & Co, London E15 1NG) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE BENNETT: There will be an order that ABS be substituted as the first defendant in place of AB Advisory Business Services Plc. The first defendant will give security for the claimant's costs in the sum of £12,000 and that sum is to be paid into court by close of business on Monday 2nd April, and in the event that such sum is not paid into court by the first defendant, then the appeal of the first defendant only will be stayed. 
2.	So far as the costs are concerned, the claimant will have its costs of the application as against the first defendant. But in my judgment Mr Platford on behalf of the second and third defendants, was perfectly entitled to come to this court in order to try and sort out a muddle about what precisely the claimant was seeking. The claimant appears to have been seeking that the appeal on behalf of all the appellants should be stayed. Whilst there was reason to doubt that, in the light of Mr Rowley's affidavit, nevertheless in my judgment the second and third defendants were entitled to come today and get the position clarified. It could easily have been clarified last Friday. 
3.	Therefore I propose to grant the application of the second and third defendants that the claimant pays their costs of Mr Platford's appearance today. 
ORDER: Security for costs ordered in the sum of £12,000 to be paid by close of business on Monday 2nd April, failing which the appeal of the first defendant will be stayed; the claimant will have its costs of the application as against the first defendant; claimant to pay the second and third defendants their costs of Mr Platford's appearance today; first defendant to pay costs assessed in the sum of £1,202.03 into court by close of business on Monday 2nd April, failing which the first defendant's appeal is stayed.
(Order not part of approved judgment)
____________________