Case No : A3/2011/2552 & 2557 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 1335
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAVELOCK-ALLAN QC)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date : 	Wednesday 12th September 2012

Before:

LORD JUSTICE RIX
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
and
LORD JUSTICE MOORE - BICK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	Rubenstein	
Appellant	
	- and -		
	
HSBC Bank	

Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Lord Justice Rix:

1.	This appeal is allowed.  The order is: 
1. The appellant's appeal is allowed save as to the appeal in respect of the ex gratia payment issue which is dismissed. 
2. The respondent's cross-appeal is dismissed. 
3. The order of HHJ Havelock-Allan QC dated 13 September 2011 is set aside including: 
i) the order as to costs; 
and ii) the order for an interim payment of costs to the respondent in the sum of £150,000.
4. There shall be judgment for the appellant in the agreed sum of £112,543.28 inclusive of interest of £6,509.13 until 12 September 2012 and having already offset the ex gratia payment.  This sum shall be paid by or before 4pm on 3 October 2012.  
5. The respondent shall repay the interim payment referred to in paragraph 3 above by or before 4pm on 3 October 2012 , together with interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent above the HSBC Bank base rate from 4 October 2011 until the date of repayment. 
6. Save as set out at paragraph 7 below, the respondent shall pay the appellant's costs of: 
(a) the appellant's appeal; 
(b) the respondent's cross-appeal; 
and c) the proceedings below; in each case to be assessed on the bases specified in paragraph 8 below.  
Save as set out at paragraph 8.2 below, interest thereon shall be at the rate of 1 per cent above the HSBC bank base rate and credit shall be given for the interim payment set out below in paragraph 9. 
7. The appellant shall bear his own costs of the appeal in respect of the ex gratia payment issue up to 3 May 2012 and shall pay the respondent's appeal costs of that issue up to the same date on the standard basis, to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.  [I comment, I hope it can be agreed.] 
8. In relation to the costs payable by the respondent pursuant to paragraph 6 above in respect of: 
8.1 the costs of the proceedings below. Those costs shall be assessed on the standard basis; 
and 8.2 the costs of the appellant's appeal and of the respondent's cross-appeal. Those costs shall be assessed on the standard basis until 3 May 2012 and thereafter on an indemnity basis, plus interest thereon at 5 per cent per annum, in each case to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed.  
9. The respondent shall by or before 4pm on 3 October 2012 make an interim payment to the appellant of the costs orders to be paid as above in the sum of £400,000 in respect of the costs of the proceedings below and £225,000 in respect of the costs of the appellant's appeal and of the respondent's cross-appeal to a total of £625,000. 
10. The respondent's application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused. 
11. The provisions of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above shall be stayed until 10 October 2012, and if an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is filed within that time shall be further stayed until the determination of that application and, if successful, the ensuing appeal to the Supreme Court.

2.	Our reasons for refusing permission to the Supreme Court are that, first of all, on the submissions made to us in application for that permission, this case seems to raise particular factual allegations which may make further hearing to the Supreme Court unsuitable, but even putting aside that consideration, the issues raised, if of wider importance, are matters which we think that the Supreme Court should consider whether an application should be granted for permission for themselves. 

3.	For those reasons, that application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused.

Order: Application refused