Iryna Gordiy v Finadvant Ltd & Anor

An appeal does not, by itself, stay execution of the judgment under appeal. A stay should be granted only where the court considers that it is in the interests of justice. The court must assess the risk of injustice to each party if the stay is granted or refused and decide where the balance of justice lies. A respondent’s undertaking to hold payment in escrow, subject to the court’s order, may sufficiently protect an appellant’s ability to recover the money if the appeal succeeds. A party’s failure to pay costs does not automatically justify requiring payment as a condition of continuing an appeal, particularly where the evidence does not establish a general unwillingness or inability to pay debts.

The applicant sought to appeal an order requiring her to pay costs to the respondents. In the course of seeking permission to appeal, she applied for a stay of execution. A previous application for a stay had been refused on paper by Joanna Smith J because the appeal notice did not set out sufficient grounds.

The applicant alleged that she would be unable to recover the money if she paid it to Finadvant. Finadvant offered an undertaking that any payment would be held in an escrow account by its solicitors and not disposed of without the court’s authority. Finadvant also cross-applied for payment of a reduced sum as a condition of the appeal continuing. The issues were whether execution should be stayed and whether payment should be ordered as a condition of pursuing the appeal.

1. Stay of execution. There is no entitlement to a stay merely because an appeal has been made. The governing question is whether a stay is in the interests of justice.
2. The court must examine the position from each party’s perspective. It must compare the potential injustice caused by granting or refusing the stay with the potential injustice to the other party if the appeal ultimately succeeds or fails.
3. The applicant’s concern that payment to Finadvant might not be recoverable was a legitimate consideration. The concern was adequately addressed by the undertaking that any payment would be held in escrow and subject to the order of the court. The stay of execution was therefore refused.
4. Condition of continuing the appeal. The court declined to order payment of £17,739 as a condition of the appeal continuing. The evidence did not justify treating the applicant as a general serial non-payer of costs. Although she had not paid sums due to the respondents, she had paid £65,000 to another creditor. A search report recording a further small debt to an unknown creditor did not establish a general pattern of refusing to pay debts.
5. The respondents’ remedy for non-payment was enforcement. The court also noted that a bankruptcy order might alter the position and raise questions for the trustee in bankruptcy about control of the cause of action, but that possibility did not justify an immediate payment order.
6. The stay was refused and the cross-application was dismissed.

The application was made in the course of seeking permission to appeal an order of Deputy ICC Judge Passfield dated 14 January 2026. Joanna Smith J refused an earlier paper application for a stay on 2 March 2026. The present court refused to set aside or vary that order and dismissed the respondents’ cross-application.