Rosengrens Ltd v Safe Deposit Centres Ltd (Practice Note)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Civ J0517-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 84/0203 |
| Date | 17 May 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Civ J0517-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE BOREHAM)
Royal Courts of Justice.
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir John Donaldson)
and
Lord Justice Parker
84/0203
MR. R. WILMOT-SMITH (instructed by Messrs. Clyde & Co.) appeared on behalf of the (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
MR. ALEXANDER IRVINE, Q.C. and MR. R. FIELD (instructed by Messrs. Nicholson Graham & Jones) appeared on behalf of the (Defendants) Appellants.
This is a rather curious appeal by the defendants, Safe Deposit Centres Limited, in three actions which have been begun against them by Rosengrens Limited.
The plaintiffs, as they were entitled, applied for judgment under order 14. They appeared before Master Waldman, and he gave judgment for the sum of £247,987, which was most, but not all, of what was claimed. He then decided that it would be appropriate to stay execution on that judgment provided that the whole amount was brought into court within seven days.
The defendants re-appeared before him a week later, saying "May we, instead of paying £247,987 into court, give a bank guarantee for everything which may be found to be due from us in the action?" The learned master considered that request, and was referred to the speech of Lord Diplock in Yorke Motors v. Edwards (1982) 1 Weekly Law Reports 444. The particular passage to which he was referred occurs on page 450 where Lord Diplock referred to an old decision of the House of Lords given at the turn of the century about conditions being imposed as the price of leave to defend under order 14. Lord Diplock pointed out that as times change, so discretionary practice must change. He drew attention to the fact that, with high interest rates and sometimes changes in rates of exchange, there is a premium accruing nowadays to debtors who delay paying their just debts, and there was nothing in the old cases to prevent the court taking full account, as they do in the Commercial Court, of the changed circumstances.
He gave his blessing and that of their Lordships' House to the note in the Supreme Court Practice which says: "The condition of payment into court, or giving security, is nowadays more often imposed than formerly…" He went on to say that that was a statement that his own experience, extending over half a century, could confirm. I probably will never be able to say that my own experience extends over half a century, but that certainly has been my experience throughout my career.
That sentence was interpreted by the master as meaning that there were two quite different conditions, in no way conflicting, which might be imposed, namely payment into court or giving security, and the court was obliged to consider which was appropriate in the circumstances. With the greatest respect, I profoundly disagree. The condition which Lord Diplock was referring to was a condition designed to provide security for the plaintiff. Security can be provided in a large number of different ways, the most common of which is paying money into court or providing a bank guarantee. Where a court is trying to preserve a position pending a further investigation either of a counterclaim or a possible appeal, it is rightly concerned to make certain that the thus far successful party shall not by the passage of time lose the potential fruits of his judgment. That is what security is all about. The court is not concerned to take steps against the unsuccessful party with a view to punishing him in any way or to disadvantage him to any greater extent than is necessary to do justice to the plaintiff.
The learned master, on the strength of that authority, refused to allow the defendants to produce a bank guarantee in lieu of payment into court; but he did, for reasons which are immaterial and have not been vouchsafed, reduce the amount which had to be paid into court to £200,000.
There was then a notice of appeal against the whole summary judgment, and a date has been fixed for that hearing on the 9th July. But meanwhile the position of the parties was the subject of a sub-appeal, namely an application to His Honour Judge Hawser, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, asking him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saxon Woods Investments Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of the Bahamas) v Francesco Costa
...as to the means by which it should be provided. Mr Tom Weisselberg QC for the claimants submitted, by analogy with Rosengrens Ltd v Safe Deposit Centres Ltd (Practice Note) [1984] 1 WLR 1334 (which was a case of security pending an appeal) that if, on an application for security, two diffe......
-
(1) Recovery Partners GB Ltd v (1) Irakli Rukhadze
...also as to the means by which it should be provided. Mr Weisselberg QC for the Claimants submitted, by analogy with the case of Rosengrens v Safe Deposit Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 1334 (which was a case of security pending an appeal) that if, on an application for security, two different forms of se......
- Sena Land Development Sdn Bhd; Sungei way Leasing Sdn Bhd
-
Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi and Brothers Company v Saad Investments Company Ltd, Maan Al-sanea and Others
...(4) Mordant, Re, [1995] BCC 209; [1995] 2 BCLC 647, applied. (5) Rosengrens Ltd. v. Safe Deposit Centres Ltd., Practice Note, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1334; [1984] 3 All E.R. 198, referred to. (6) Stokors SA v. IG Markets Ltd., [2012] EWHC 1684 (Comm), applied. (7) W.A. Sherratt Ltd. v. John Bromley......
-
Litigation
...of the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision, as to which see Chapter 24. 1040 See, eg, Rosengrens Ltd v Safe Deposit Centres Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 1334 (CA); Ardin & Brookes & Partners v Omenport Developments Ltd (Unreported, Eng. Ct App, Glidewell and Ralph Gibson LJJ, 25 March 1991); Gray ......