Pritpal Singh Gill v (1) Anami Holdings Limited (2) Clark Hill Limited

Where a court has stayed enforcement of an order pending determination of related proceedings, parties cannot circumvent the stay through nominees, receivers or associated entities. Steps which appear to enforce the secured obligation, including a sale of the charged property, may breach the stay even where they are not taken by the named parties. The court may join persons involved in the enforcement process and grant an interim injunction where continuation of the sale would frustrate the purpose of the stay.

The claimant made an urgent without notice application for an interim injunction in existing proceedings. He challenged a 2014 settlement agreement and consent order requiring payment of £2.5 million secured over a family property. A stay made on 17 July 2017 prohibited enforcement by the defendants pending final determination of the action.

The claimant alleged that a company said to be a nominee for the defendants had appointed a receiver, who sold the property to an associated company. The property was then marketed for sale at a substantially higher price. The central issue was whether the proposed sale would breach or frustrate the stay.

1. The application was granted. The proposed additional defendants were added as parties, and an injunction was granted until a return date.
2. The stay on enforcement remained in force pending final determination of the claimant’s action. Its effect could not be avoided merely because enforcement steps were taken by entities which were not named defendants but appeared to be nominees or effective nominees for them.
3. On the evidence, the sale of the property by Enilo International Limited was in breach of the stay. The appointment or purported appointment of a receiver to enforce the charge formed part of that enforcement process.
4. A further sale by auction or private treaty would frustrate the purpose of the stay. Interim relief was therefore appropriate to preserve the position until the return hearing.
5. The injunction was granted until Friday 1 February 2019, or as soon as possible thereafter.