Fairbridge Capital Ltd v Chandu Patel & Anor

A stay of execution of a possession warrant may be refused where a proposed payment arrangement is unsupported and intended to postpone enforcement. The court may assess the timing of the offer, the apparent availability of funds, the history of delay and any unexplained need for staged payments.

Where occupants know of the intended eviction, the court may dispense with the usual 14 days’ notice under CPR r.83.8A(5)(a). The slip rule permits correction of minor clerical errors, but does not provide a vehicle for meritless applications.

Fairbridge Capital Ltd had obtained possession of the defendants’ residential property after persistent non-payment of a secured bridging loan. Enforcement had been repeatedly delayed, including by wrongly granted breathing-space periods and an earlier failure to give the required notice.

The defendants applied for a stay, relying on a proposed gift of up to £750,000 from their son-in-law, payable in stages by May 2026. They also sought permission to amend aspects of the County Court order under the slip rule, or alternatively to appeal them.

The issues were whether execution should be stayed, whether further applications should be permitted, whether the usual notice requirement should be dispensed with, and whether a minor date error should be corrected.

1. The application was refused. The temporary stay was lifted, and Fairbridge was permitted to enforce the possession order made by Deputy District Judge Compton.
2. The proposed gift and staged payment plan were intended to delay enforcement. The court relied on the timing of the offer, repeated use of breathing-space relief, the absence of earlier repayment proposals, the apparent availability of liquid assets and the unexplained need for further time.
3. The ancillary applications concerning the slip rule and a possible appeal lacked legal or factual merit and would cause further delay. Permission to pursue them was refused.
4. As the defendants knew of the intended eviction, the usual 14 days’ notice was dispensed with under CPR r.83.8A(5)(a).
5. Minor date errors in the recital to an earlier order were corrected under CPR r.40.12.

First-instance decision. The High Court lifted the interim stay imposed by Hill J and refused the defendants’ applications.