Dany Lions Ltd v Bristol Cars Ltd

Where a consent order permits enforcement after written notice, a demand for payment of the secured judgment sum may itself constitute an attempt to enforce the judgment. A court dealing with enforcement should also avoid prejudicing the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction where an application for permission to appeal and a stay remains pending. The court may therefore direct payment under the consent order, while suspending compliance until the Court of Appeal determines the stay application. If a stay is granted, suspension may continue until the appeal is resolved.

The applications followed a trial before Andrews J concerning the defendant’s alleged breach of a contract for repair and modification of a Bristol motor car. Andrews J entered judgment for the claimant, including interest. The defendant lodged an Appellant’s Notice seeking permission to appeal and a stay of execution.

Pending the Court of Appeal’s decision, the parties entered into a consent order. The defendant undertook to place the judgment sums into solicitors’ client account, while the claimant agreed not to enforce them without seven days’ written notice. The claimant gave notice and sought release of the money. The defendant sought an order restraining enforcement pending the Court of Appeal’s determination.

1. The claimant had complied with the consent order by giving seven days’ written notice of its intention to enforce payment. The subsequent demand to the defendant’s solicitors for payment of the sums held in the client account was an attempt to enforce Andrews J’s judgment.
2. The outstanding application to the Court of Appeal for a stay was material. The High Court had to avoid prejudicing the exercise of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction. The defendant’s submissions as to whether a stay should be granted were matters for the Court of Appeal.
3. It was appropriate to direct the defendant’s solicitors to pay £220,070.84, being the monies held under the consent order, to the claimant. However, compliance with that direction was suspended pending determination by the Court of Appeal of the application for a stay of execution.
4. If the Court of Appeal granted a stay, compliance with the direction would remain suspended until the Court of Appeal had resolved the defendant’s appeal. The formulation proceeded on the realistic basis that a stay would not be granted without permission to appeal.
5. The claimant succeeded to a point on its application, and the defendant succeeded to a point on its application. Further submissions on costs were invited.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Following a trial before Andrews J, judgment was entered for the claimant on 21 March 2014. The judgment order was sealed on 2 April 2014.
• Court of Appeal: The defendant lodged an Appellant’s Notice on 8 April 2014 seeking permission to appeal and a stay of execution. The application remained pending when the present applications were determined.