Euro Fixed Income Limted ((in Liquidation)) (formerly Global Financial Fund Ltd and formerly Titan Euro-Financial Fund Ltd Global Fixed Income Ltd ((in Liquidation)) (formerly Global Currency Portfolio Ltd) Plaintiffs v HSBC Bank Cayman Ltd Formerly HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) Ltd and formerly Midland Bank Trust Corporation (Cayman) Ltd Defendant

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Hon. Anthony Smellie
• Judgment Date: 20 March 2009
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: Cause Nos. 221 and 222 of 2007
• Date: 20 March 2009

Between:

Euro Fixed Income Limted (In liquidation) (formerly Global Financial Fund Limited and formerly Titan Euro-Financial Fund Limited

Global Fixed Income Limited (In liquidation) (formerly Global Currency Portfolio Limited)

Plaintiffs

and

HSBC Bank Cayman Limited Formerly HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) Limited And formerly Midland Bank Trust Corporation (Cayman) Limited

Defendant

[2009] CIGC J0324-1

Before

The Hon. Anthony Smellie, Chief Justice

Cause Nos. 221 and 222 of 2007

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

IN CHAMBERS

RULING

1 This is the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal against two earlier rulings given by me in this matter. The first ruling — that given on 6^th May 2008 — granted the defendant's application for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff. The second ruling — given on 5^th November 2008 — refused the plaintiffs application for a stay of the security for costs order, pending the plaintiffs' intended appeal against that order.

2 In bringing the application now for leave to appeal against both the 6^th May and 5^th November 2008 orders, the plaintiffs accept that leave to appeal should only be given where, in the circumstances of this case, there is shown to be an arguable case with a real prospect of success on appeal TIW v CVC Opportunity 2001 CILR N21.

3 Here the plaintiffs specifically do not rely on any public interest ground of appeal.

4 In seeking to show the plaintiffs' prospect of success on appeal, Mr. McGrath directs his criticism primarily to the ruling for security for costs in favour of the defendant.

5 He says it is wrong in principle for there to have been imposed upon the plaintiffs a requirement to show, not just that it itself is impecunious and so would be driven from pursuing its claim by the security for costs order; but also that its shareholders are impecunious. This is Mr. McGrath's paraphrase of one of my reasons for having ordered security in the context of the plaintiffs' investors failing to explain why they would not fund the litigation which the impecunious plaintiffs seek to undertake on their behalf.

6 Moreover, says Mr. McGrath, it was an improper exercise of discretion for me to have placed little emphasis upon the plaintiffs' counter-allegations; which is that the defendant itself had caused their impecuniosity by its very conduct which is the plaintiffs' cause of action.

7 In light of the...