||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 460 (Oct)
|| EWCA Civ 1501
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Potter and Carnwath LJJ
||Philip Coppel (instructed by Parrot & Coales, Aylesbury) for the claimant.
||Adam Tolley (instructed by Haarmann Hemmelrath) for the defendant.
||31 October 2002
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 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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary