The third parties lay claim to the monies in the BOS. Ideally that issue - should be tried in whichever form is the most convenient. I cannot decide it today. But I do not think it fair to reduce the amount of the Mareva because that claim exists particularly where is it so hotly disputed for the reasons given by Mr.Conti which I need not rehearse.

The relevance of the third parties' claim today is that it shows the importance of the Plaintiff's cross undertaking in damages to third parties. Undertaking 5 provides as follows:

"The Petitioner will pay the reasonable administrative costs of anyone other than the respondent which have been incurred as a result of this order including the costs of ascertaining whether that person holds any of the respondent's assets and that if the Court later finds that this order has caused such person loss, and decides that such person should be compensated for that loss, the Petitioner will comply with any order the court may make."

Deemster Kerruish refrained from ordering security.

"The Deemster…indicated that the court do not presently require the Petitioner to provide security…"

The third party Ossama Kholeif says that the freezing order is "likely to be damaging to his business activities" However, he has other accounts, which he accepts, but he has not said how much is in them. It is therefore difficult to quantify the degree of damage he might suffer. The third party Dr .Eleish wishes access to her funds to enable her to proceed with the building of a home in Egypt. If she cannot get access to her fund she says that "considerable inconvenience and distress" will be caused to all family members. She has given many details about her plans to move to Egypt and her personal circumstances. She has provided sufficient evidence to show a good arguable case that if the sums in the BOS are in fact hers the injunction will cause her and her family substantial inconvenience. It is also possible that she will suffer some financial loss resulting from a forced sale of a London property and the loss of a salary in Egypt.

It seems to me therefore that the Plaintiff's cross undertaking in damages should be secured. The Plaintiff may have assets in the US from which an order of this court could be satisfied but if the third parties obtain an order as to damages from this court they ought in principle to be able to enforce it with ease and not have to proceed in another jurisdiction.

As to the amount of the security Mr O'Riordan suggested $300,000. This is about 25% of the sum injuncted. He arrives at that figure by way of an order made by the Texan court whereby in return for an order injuncting $400,000 in the name of one of the third parties security in the sum of $100,000 was ordered. I do not think that one can argue from the Texan court decision. How it reached $100,000 is not known.

The amount of the security ought to relate to the amount of the projected loss. Ossama Kholeif may suffer financial loss but in an unspecified amount. Dr. Eleish may suffer inconvenience and distress and some financial loss, again not fully quantified. It is therefore difficult to estimate the amount of a likely award of damages on the cross undertaking. Doing the best I can to order security in an amount which reflects the justice of the case I consider that a security in the sum of $75,000 should be provided to fortify the undertaking given by the Plaintiff in respect of undertaking no.5. It has not been suggested by Mr. Conti that the Plaintiff cannot provide security in such a sum.

The order of the Court therefore is that the injunction remains in force but with an added provision relating to security in respect of undertaking no.5. I will hear counsel as to the details of the order in relation to security.

(After discussion with Counsel)

The injunction shall remain in force but within 21 days the Plaintiffs shall provide security in respect of undertaking no.5 in the form of a guarantee by a bank in the Isle of Man or in such other form as is agreed by the plaintiff and third parties and failing agreement in such form as is directed by the Court.

The third parties shall pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs of the two applications, that is, the application to discharge and the application for security.