Rainbow Estates Limited v Tokenhold Limited & Anor

An application to reinstate an appeal dismissed for failure to provide security for costs may be managed by a final, time-limited unless order where the applicant seeks relief after substantial delay. The applicant must file bundles complying with the applicable Practice Direction and bundle requirements and must explain the procedural basis for reinstatement. Physical disability and assistance from an advice service do not justify continuing extensions where the required materials remain outstanding. Failure to comply may result in dismissal with costs without further order.

The second defendant applied for permission to reinstate an appeal dismissed by Lord Justice Chadwick on 26 August 1998 after the defendants failed to provide £12,000 security for the respondent’s costs. The underlying appeal challenged summary judgment given by Mr Laurence Collins QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, on 4 March 1998.

The reinstatement application was filed on 6 December 2000, more than two years after dismissal. Although the applicant had physical disabilities and assistance from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, he had not provided the required bundles. The central issue was whether further time should be allowed and, if so, on what terms.

The application for reinstatement was not finally determined on its merits. Deputy Master Joseph made a final, conditional case-management order.

1. Delay and compliance. The applicant faced grave difficulties because the appeal had been dismissed about two and a half years earlier for failure to provide security for costs. Despite his physical disabilities and assistance from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, the court could not extend time indefinitely where the supporting bundles remained outstanding.
2. Final opportunity. The applicant was given 28 days from sealing of the order to file bundles in the Civil Appeals Office which fully complied with the applicable Practice Direction and bundle leaflet. The bundles were required to address specifically the basis on which an appeal dismissed for failure to provide security should be reinstated. The court directed that the applicant should be urged to obtain legal advice.
3. Unless order. If compliant bundles were not filed within the 28-day period, the application would stand dismissed with costs without further order. If the applicant complied, the application was to be listed before a single Lord Justice, preferably Lord Justice Chadwick, with the question of inviting the respondents to attend considered in advance.

1. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Laurence Collins QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, gave summary judgment on 4 March 1998.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The defendants’ appeal was dismissed by Lord Justice Chadwick on 26 August 1998 for failure to provide £12,000 security for costs by the ordered date.
3. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the second defendant’s later application to reinstate the dismissed appeal, the court made a final 28-day unless order. The procedural judgment is reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 441.