Cases Nos: A3/2010/1075 (A), (D), (E), (F), (G), (A), A3/2010/0075 (A), (D), (C); A3/2010/1230; A3/2010/0964
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 771
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
MR JUSTICE BEATSON 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 1st July 2011
Before :

LORD JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON
and
LORD JUSTICE GROSS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BETWEEN :

	1.	MAHAN AIR
2.	BLUE SKY AVIATION CO FZE	Appellants/
Defendants	
	- and -		
	1.	BLUE SKY ONE LIMITED
2.	BLUE SKY TWO LIMITED
3.	BLUE SKY THREE LIMITED
4.	BALLI GROUP PLC
5.	CRYPTON LIMITED
6.	BLUE SKY SIX LIMITED
7.	BLUE SKY FOUR LIMITED
8.	BLUE SKY FIVE LIMITED	

Respondents	
	
AND BETWEEN

	1.	BLUE SKY ONE LIMITED
2.	BLUE SKY TWO LIMITED
3.	BLUE SKY THREE LIMITED	Claimants/
Respondents 	
	- and -		
	1.	BLUE AIRWAYS LLC
2.	MAHAN AIR
3.	BLUE SKY AVIATION CO. FZE	Defendants/
Appellants
	
	- and -		
	1.	BALLI GROUP PLC
2.	CRYPTON LIMITED
3.	BLUE SKY SIX LIMITED
4.	BLUE SKY FOUR LIMITED
5.	BLUE SKY FIVE LIMITED	Third Parties	
	
AND BETWEEN

	PK AIRFINANCE US INC	Claimant/ Respondent	
	- and -		
	1.	BLUE SKY TWO LIMITED
2.	BLUE SKY THREE LIMITED
3.	BALLI GROUP PLC
and	Defendant/
Respondents	
	4.	MAHAN AIR
5.	BLUE SKY AVIATION CO. FZE	Defendant/ Appellants	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hodge Malek QC and John Kimbell (instructed by Piper Smith Watton LLP) for Mahan Air, Blue Sky Aviation Co. FZE
Philip Shepherd QC and Bajul Shah (instructed by Norton Rose LLP) for Balli Group Plc, Blue Sky One Ltd, Blue Sky Two Ltd, Blue Sky Three Ltd, Blue Sky Four Ltd, Blue Sky Five Ltd, Blue Sky Six Ltd and Crypton Ltd
Stephen Moriarty QC and John Passmore (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) for PK AirFinance US Inc.

Hearing date: 31 January 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ON COSTS

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton : 
1.	We have considered the written submissions of the parties on the issues of costs arising from our judgment of 11 May 2011. We adopt the definitions in paragraph 1 of our judgment.
2.	The Mahan Parties will bear their own costs of their renewed application for permission to appeal against the judge’s finding as to the location of Aircraft 2. We make no order as to the costs incurred by the other parties in relation to this ex parte application and it was so determined, as directed by Longmore LJ as set out in the letter of the CAO of 15 September 2010.
3.	The Mahan Parties accept that they must pay the costs of PK in relation to their unsuccessful application for permission to adduce new evidence in relation to the Aircraft 2, and we so order.
4.	The Mahan Parties must pay the costs of PK and the Balli Parties of the applications of PK and the Balli Parties for security for costs and for the imposition of a condition on the Mahan Parties’ appeals and of the Mahan Parties’ application for a stay of execution. These costs follow the event.
5.	The costs of the renewed applications for permission to appeal that were granted (i.e., PK’s application for permission to appeal on lex registrii, the Mahan Parties’ application for permission to appeal against the quantum of deductions from the counterclaim of US$67 million and the Balli Parties’ applications for permission to appeal in A3/2010/0964 and 0075(A)) will, as is normal, be costs in the respective appeals.
6.	All of the costs we have ordered to be paid will be determined by detailed assessment on the standard basis, if not agreed. The assessment of costs is too complex for summary assessment.
7.	The Mahan Parties must pay to PK by way of interim payment on account of the costs for which they are liable the sum of £45,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of our order.
8.	The Mahan Parties must pay to the Balli Parties by way of interim payment on account of the costs for which they are liable the sum of £25,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of our order.