Cintec International Ltd v Parkes [2010] EWHC 445 (Ch) (17 February 2010)

Cintec International Ltd v Parkes [2010] EWHC 445 (Ch) (17 February 2010)

The stay on the interim payment order was conditional on compliance with specified terms, including the deposit of the painting by Mr. Frost and payment by 11 December 2003. These terms were not complied with, so the stay lapsed and the certificate for £90,000 was properly granted. The application to admit fresh evidence failed as the evidence was not shown to be unavailable with reasonable diligence, nor likely to have an important influence on the outcome.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 445 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Cintec International Limited; Defendant/appellant: John H. Parkes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (chancery Division) / Permission to Appeal Against Master's Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Costs Orders, Interim Payments, Stay of Execution, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement of Costs Orders Interim Payments Stay of Execution Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cintec International Limited

Claimant/respondent

John H. Parkes

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (chancery Division) / Permission to Appeal Against Master's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the certificate for £90,000 pursuant to para.9 of the order of 16th October 2003 was properly granted
  2. 2 Whether the stay on the interim payment order was still in effect
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The stay on the interim payment order was conditional on compliance with specified terms, including the deposit of the painting by Mr. Frost and payment by 11 December 2003. These terms were not complied with, so the stay lapsed and the certificate for £90,000 was properly granted. The application to admit fresh evidence failed as the evidence was not shown to be unavailable with reasonable diligence, nor likely to have an important influence on the outcome.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Order of Master Bragge dated 19 May 2009 stands
  • No permission to admit fresh evidence