Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Others

An application to stay execution under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 83.7, concerns enforcement of an existing judgment or order. It does not permit the court to revisit the underlying decision, extend time, or reconsider matters determined by the Court of Appeal. Factors bearing on whether costs should have been payable immediately are not, without more, special circumstances making enforcement inexpedient. Where liability is joint and several and payment is ordered immediately, the possibility that one defendant may pay first and pursue co-obligors is an ordinary consequence of that order. The complexity, scale and continuing nature of litigation do not themselves justify a stay of execution.

The claimant’s substantive claims had been dismissed at first instance, but the Court of Appeal allowed its appeal on the revenue-rule issues, except against ED&F Man. The Court of Appeal ordered the relevant defendants, including the DWF defendants, to pay specified costs and a £2.2 million payment on account by 1 April 2022. Detailed assessment was stayed pending a possible Supreme Court appeal, but payment on account was not deferred, subject to liberty to apply for a further stay.

The DWF defendants applied under that liberty for a stay of their payment obligation until the Supreme Court proceedings or the proceedings as a whole had concluded. They relied on the absence of prejudice to the claimant, the unusual nature and conduct of the litigation, its substantial remaining aspects, and the burden of joint and several liability.

1. Application dismissed. The relevant jurisdiction was to stay execution under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 83.7, rather than to interfere with, revisit or extend time in relation to the Court of Appeal’s order.
2. Under rule 83.7(4), the court had to be satisfied that special circumstances made enforcement inexpedient, or that the applicant was unable to pay. The defendants relied only on the first ground.
3. Most matters relied upon were not special circumstances. They concerned whether the modern practice of requiring immediate payment of costs after substantive preliminary issues should have applied. Those matters had already been determined adversely by the Court of Appeal and did not address whether execution of the resulting judgment debt was just or inexpedient.
4. The possible unfairness that the claimant might enforce against one or more joint obligors, leaving the paying defendant to pursue co-obligors, was an inevitable consequence of the Court of Appeal’s decision that liability was joint and several and payable immediately. It did not make enforcement inexpedient.
5. The scale, complexity and continuing nature of the litigation, possible future costs orders, and the possibility of a successful Supreme Court appeal did not alter that conclusion. The claimant was entitled to levy execution in the normal way in respect of the overdue payment on account.

• Court of Appeal: by order dated 4 March 2022, corrected on 7 March 2022, allowed SKAT’s appeal except against ED&F Man and ordered payment on account of costs, while staying detailed assessment pending any Supreme Court permission application or appeal.
• High Court (Commercial Court): dismissed the DWF defendants’ application for a further stay of execution.