Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 460 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWCA Civ 1501
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Potter and Carnwath LJJ

Representation Philip Coppel (instructed by Parrot & Coales, Aylesbury) for the claimant.
  Adam Tolley (instructed by Haarmann Hemmelrath) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 31 October 2002

Catchwords

Practice and procedure - Appeal - Application to stay appeal - Defendant not paying sums ordered by judge - Appropriateness of granting stay of appeal - CPR 52.9.

The Case

The fact that the 'normal' processes of enforcement, such as those provided for by Council Regulation(EC) 44-2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters), were available to a successful party in respect of a sum ordered to be paid following trial was not fatal per se to a successful application under CPR52.9 for payment for security in respect of the judgment sum as a condition of an appeal proceeding. In the instant case, where a defendant had unjustifiably refused to comply with the order of the judge to pay 135,000 to the claimant when well able to do so, and had adopted an obstructive attitude over the question of enforcement, there was a compelling reason to make an order, in the claimant's favour, under CPR52.9(1)(c) that the defendant's appeal would be stayed unless within 14 days it paid into court the sum of 135,000.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.