Aerotron Limited v Hermes Aviation Limited

When enforcement of a judgment is challenged on appeal, the court may grant a stay before formal enforcement proceedings have begun where the procedural framework and the court’s jurisdiction support that relief. The discretion requires the court to weigh the risk of injustice and prejudice to each party. The judgment creditor’s entitlement to payment remains the starting point, so a stay is exceptional. The applicant must show solid grounds by cogent evidence. Relevant considerations include the real risk that sums paid will not be recoverable if the appeal succeeds, the practical difficulty and cost of recovery, and serious commercial or reputational harm threatened enforcement may cause. The court should protect an appeal from being rendered nugatory while preserving the creditor’s position, including through payment arrangements or further interest where appropriate.

Aerotron Limited v Hermes Aviation Limited had applied unsuccessfully for refusal of recognition and enforcement of two Maltese judgments. The substantive application was dismissed in [2026] EWHC 1879 (KB). Aerotron lodged an appeal and sought a stay of enforcement and execution pending its determination.

It relied on evidence that Hermes, a dormant Maltese company, might be unable to repay the judgment debt if enforcement proceeded and the appeal succeeded. Hermes argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant a freestanding stay before enforcement proceedings had commenced, and that Aerotron’s appeal would not be stifled by refusal of a stay. The central issues were jurisdiction and the balance of prejudice.

1. Jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction to grant relief. CPR r.74.7B(b), as reflected in CPR r.74.7B.1, contemplated an application under Article 44 of the Brussels Recast Regulation 1215/2012 even where the judgment debtor was not aware of enforcement proceedings. Article 44 was not read as requiring a debtor to wait until enforcement had begun, particularly where threatened bankruptcy or winding-up proceedings could cause irremediable damage to credit or financial reputation. Jurisdiction also arose under CPR r.3.1(2)(g), in light of the Article 53 certificate, the earlier application concerning recognition and enforcement, and the substantive judgment permitting enforcement to commence.
2. Applicable approach. A judgment creditor is normally entitled to receive the judgment debt notwithstanding an appeal. A stay is exceptional. The applicant must establish solid grounds by cogent evidence. The court must consider all the circumstances and weigh the risk of injustice and prejudice to both parties. The guiding objective is to ensure that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory, while respecting the creditor’s ordinary entitlement to payment.
3. Application. Aerotron established a real risk that repayment would be difficult, time-consuming, costly and possibly unsuccessful. Hermes was dormant, had apparently ceased trading, had not filed accounts, had offered no evidence of its financial position, and there was a strong likelihood that it might be insolvent. There was also a continuing risk of strike-off for non-compliance with Maltese company requirements. Threatened winding-up proceedings would seriously disrupt Aerotron’s business, trading activities and reputation and might compel payment for commercial reasons.
4. The prejudice to Hermes was limited. Hermes had shown no particular urgency, and any delay could be compensated by further interest. Aerotron had also offered arrangements intended to cover the judgment debt, interest and costs. The balance therefore favoured Aerotron. The application was granted and enforcement and execution of the judgment debt and interest were stayed.

The judgment records that Aerotron lodged an appeal on 30 July 2026 against the substantive decision, [2026] EWHC 1879 (KB) , which had dismissed its application concerning recognition and enforcement of two Maltese judgments. The present court granted a stay pending determination of that appeal.