Century Property (Leeds) Ltd v Dr Jason Aldiss & Anor (Consequential matters)

A stay of enforcement is discretionary. The court must identify which course best accords with the interests of justice by balancing the risk of injustice to each party, including the apparent strength of any appeal and the recoverability of sums paid.

The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. That rule may be displaced only by sufficiently good reasons. Indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances taking the case out of the norm through unreasonableness, not merely because a party was wrong. Summary costs must be reasonable and proportionate.

This was a consequential-matters judgment following the court’s decision granting Century Property mandatory injunctions to enforce a judgment debt against Dr Aldiss’s self-invested personal pension, with Embark Pensions Trustees Ltd as trustee.

Dr Aldiss sought a stay of enforcement, further procedural safeguards concerning the pension drawdown, and an order that no costs be awarded against him. Century Property sought its costs on the indemnity basis. The issues were whether enforcement should be stayed, whether further provisions were needed in the order, and what costs order and basis of assessment were appropriate.

1. Stay of enforcement. The stay application was refused. The governing question was whether granting or refusing a stay risked injustice to one or both parties, applying the guidance in Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2065 and Leicester Circuits Ltd v Coates Brothers PLC [2002] EWCA Civ 472. The court balanced the general rule against a stay, the competing prejudice, the questionable prospects of challenging the Tomlin Order by appeal, and the absence of evidence that sums paid could not be recovered.
2. Order and procedural safeguards. No further obligation to re-send pension documentation or provide an additional response period was required. The existing order already allowed Dr Aldiss to review and comment on the draft documents before execution, and paragraph 11 permitted an application to vary or discharge the order.
3. Liability for costs. The general rule under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.2(2)(a), applied. Dr Aldiss’s status as a litigant in person, the alleged prematurity of the application, his proposed appeal, and the sincerity of his concerns did not provide sufficient reason to displace it. He was ordered to pay Century Property’s costs.
4. Basis and amount. Applying Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hannah Aspden & Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 879, Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) and Williams v Jervis [2009] EWHC 1837 (QB), indemnity costs were justified only for the wasted first hearing, because the adjournment application was ultimately pointless. The remaining costs were assessed on the standard basis. Following West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220, the court assessed reasonableness and then proportionality under rules 44.3(5) and 44.4. Costs were summarily assessed at £54,432.93 including VAT, and the costs order was not stayed.