Ripple Markets Apac Pte Ltd v P Dot Money Limited & Anor

The application concerned a stay of execution of default judgments dated 14 August 2023 pending the Defendants' application to set those judgments aside. The central legal framework was CPR 83.7, which permits a stay where the court is satisfied that there are special circumstances rendering enforcement inexpedient or that the applicant is unable to pay, and which requires supporting witness evidence under CPR 83.7(6). The court held that the first defendant (P Dot Money Ltd, formerly Taasai) had not received actual notice of the proceedings before entry of the default judgment, had applied without delay and raised a defence with at least a real prospect of success; accordingly a stay of execution was appropriate but only on terms. The court also concluded that the second defendant (Mr Nyananyo) has a defence with a real prospect of success and ordered that no execution should issue against him prior to the set-aside hearing. The stay as to Taasai was granted on conditions: Taasai must pay the judgment amount into Court or provide security acceptable to the claimant within 14 days (or seek the court's permission to vary), and must file an affidavit of assets within 14 days.

This was a first-instance Commercial Court hearing of an application by the Defendants for a stay of execution of default judgments obtained by the Claimant for unpaid invoices under a written agreement called the Master XRP Commitment to Sell Agreement (the CTSA). The Claimant sought payment of US$12,780,530.35 plus fees and interest. The Defendants applied for a stay of enforcement under CPR 83.7 pending their application to set aside the default judgments, bringing arguments based on lack of actual service prior to entry of default judgment, promptness of their set-aside application and substantive defences including that the facility operated as a revolving working capital facility and that there was no tenable claim against the director (second defendant).

The court framed the issues as:

• whether the stay application complied with CPR 83.7 including the requirement for witness evidence;
• whether the Defendants had established inability to pay under CPR 83.7(4)(b) or special circumstances under CPR 83.7(4)(a);
• whether the Defendants had a real prospect of success on the set-aside application or, in the case of the second defendant, of a strike-out of the claim against him;
• what conditions (if any) should be imposed if a stay were granted.

On the evidence the judge was satisfied that Taasai had not actually received notice of the proceedings before entry of the default judgment and had applied without delay. The judge considered the pleaded and putative defences and concluded that Taasai's case was finely balanced and could not be said to have no real prospect of success. The judge also concluded that the claim against the second defendant was likely unsustainable and that execution should not issue against him before the set-aside judge had considered the point. Balancing the parties' interests, the judge decided to preserve the status quo by granting a stay in respect of the second defendant and also granting a stay as to Taasai subject to conditions intended to protect the claimant (payment into Court or provision of security within 14 days, and filing of an affidavit of assets within 14 days). The judgment records the legal requirement under CPR 83.7 to substantiate a stay application with appropriate evidence and applies authorities dealing with stays pending set-aside and enforcement.

First instance: The court granted the Defendants' stay application in part. No execution is to issue against the second defendant before the judge hearing the set-aside application because there is likely a defence with a real prospect of success. A stay of execution was also granted in respect of the first defendant (Taasai/P Dot Money Ltd) pending the set-aside hearing, on terms: Taasai must either pay the judgment amount into Court or provide security acceptable to the claimant within 14 days (or apply to vary that condition with supporting documentary evidence), and must file an affidavit of assets within 14 days. The judge's rationale was that Taasai had not received notice before the default judgment, applied without delay and had a defence with at least a real prospect of success, such that preserving the status quo pending the set-aside hearing was appropriate, subject to protective conditions for the claimant.