This is an appeal related to a Replevin Order and, specifically, the Court’s decision to remove the requirement that the Respondents post security related to the property at issue.

The Appellants claimed a Warehouser’s Lien in respect to property owned by the Respondents. The Respondents sought the return of that property, and the Commercial Chambers Judge ordered the Respondents post security to protect the maximum value of the appellants’ asserted claim relative to the lien. The Respondents later brought the matter back to the Court seeking a Replevin Order and to dispense with security. The Commercial Chambers Judge dispensed with the security bond that secured the Warehouser’s Lien.

On Appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that, among other things, the Commercial Chamber’s Judge’s decision correctly applied Rules 6.49 and 6.50 which relate to Replevin Orders and Applications for Replevin Orders. The Court of Appeal further recognized that Rule 6.50 does not explicitly require a specified from of security but rather security satisfactory to the Judge. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal.