Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd

A general stay of execution pending appeal ordinarily extends to all money orders consequential upon the judgment, including interest and interim payments on account of costs. The court should construe the stay in its procedural and chronological context, rather than artificially confining it to the principal judgment sum. A stay may also be granted under CPR 40.8A where the application and material justify that relief. Enforcement in the United States could not properly proceed using the statutory and procedural mechanism relied upon, because that mechanism did not apply to enforcement there.

Following a successful claim by PTT Public Company Ltd against Triple Point Technology, Inc., the Technology and Construction Court entered orders for a substantive judgment sum, interest and an interim payment on account of costs. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal and a stay of execution on 22 February 2018.

PTT subsequently obtained certification and enforced the interest and costs order in Connecticut. Triple Point applied urgently for an injunction, contending that the certification procedure was inapplicable and that the Court of Appeal’s stay covered the interest and costs order. PTT accepted the procedural error but disputed the scope of the stay.

1. Injunction granted. PTT was required to instruct the US Marshal to return the funds and suspend enforcement. The certification had been obtained using the wrong statutory and procedural route: the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and CPR Part 74.12 did not apply to enforcement proceedings in the United States.
2. The stay ordered by Jackson LJ on 22 February 2018 was expressed in broad terms. Two money orders were in existence when it was made: one for the substantive judgment sum and one for interest and costs. In the absence of clear words limiting the stay, it applied to both orders.
3. Interest and the payment on account of costs were consequential upon the substantive judgment. PTT had no freestanding entitlement to enforce them independently of the judgment under appeal. It would be artificial and contrary to the efficient operation of the CPR to stay the principal sum while permitting enforcement of consequential interest and costs.
4. The same conclusion followed from the appellant’s notice. Triple Point had expressly sought a stay of the defined Judgment Sum, which included interest and costs, although the precise amounts had not yet been calculated. The Court of Appeal therefore had sufficient information to grant a stay covering those sums.
5. Alternatively, if the Court of Appeal’s order did not already cover Order No.2, the present court had jurisdiction under CPR 40.8A. The application was wide enough to raise the issue, and the evidence concerning enforcement and recovery justified a further stay. The proposed enforcement was also inconsistent with the stay and with the consequential nature of the interest and costs liabilities.
6. The estoppel by convention argument was not determined. Whether PTT’s conduct was sufficient to create an estoppel was left for another case.

The judgment describes prior proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court before Jefford J, including the substantive decision at [2017] EWHC 2178 (TCC) and the consequential decision at [2018] EWHC 45 (TCC). Jackson LJ granted permission to appeal and a stay of execution on 22 February 2018. This court held that the stay covered the interest and costs order and granted injunctive relief.