Haydock Finance Ltd v Louis Transport Equipment Consultants Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 450 (04 March 2005)

Haydock Finance Ltd v Louis Transport Equipment Consultants Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 450 (04 March 2005)

No grounds were established for granting a stay of execution as there was no evidence of inability to pay or risk of non-repayment; the normal rule of no stay applies.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 450
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Haydock Finance Limited; Defendant/appellant: Louis Transport Equipment Consultants Limited; Defendant/appellant: L-Tec Hire Limited; Defendant/appellant: David Mark Stanley; Defendant/appellant: Christine Lucy Stanley; Defendant/appellant: Ray Turner; Defendant/appellant: Spalding Pallets Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Costs, Appeals
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Costs Appeals

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haydock Finance Limited

Claimant/respondent

Louis Transport Equipment Consultants Limited

Defendant/appellant

L-Tec Hire Limited

Defendant/appellant

David Mark Stanley

Defendant/appellant

Christine Lucy Stanley

Defendant/appellant

Ray Turner

Defendant/appellant

Spalding Pallets Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Appropriate order for costs of the application for stay
  3. 3 Entitlement to instruct sheriff to levy execution

Ratio Decidendi

No grounds were established for granting a stay of execution as there was no evidence of inability to pay or risk of non-repayment; the normal rule of no stay applies.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Orders

  • Costs of the oral hearing to lie where they fall and to be assessed on the basis that the application could have been dealt with on paper.
  • Costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis due to the lack of merit in the application for stay.