Read the full judgment text of CACV 000116/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 June 1999.
1. This is an application by the 1st Defendant for security for costs. It is well established that the position in relation to security for costs is different on appeal. That, to some extent, may not be quite the position here because it is an interlocutory appeal. Nonetheless, I cannot accept the basis of Mr. Mak's submission that the 1st Defendant is precluded from applying for further costs upon the basis of his view of the application of Gordano v. Burgess reported in 1988 1 WLR 890.