Akram v Academy Doors And Windows Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1442 (KB) (24 May 2023)

Akram v Academy Doors And Windows Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1442 (KB) (24 May 2023)

The application to re-impose the stay was refused because the Defendants were responsible for substantial and unjustified delay in prosecuting the appeal, the appeal was found to have no real prospect of success, and the continued stay was causing real hardship to the Claimant. The balance of justice no longer favoured a stay of execution.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1442 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Safira Akram; First Defendant: Academy Doors and Windows Limited; Second Defendant: Chander Shekhar Lal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Order (stay of Execution) in Civil Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment, Application to Re Impose Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals, Enforcement of Judgments, Costs, Building Contracts
Civil Procedure Contract Law Stay of Execution Appeals Enforcement of Judgments Costs Building Contracts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Safira Akram

Claimant

Academy Doors and Windows Limited

First Defendant

Chander Shekhar Lal

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Order (stay of Execution) in Civil Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment, Application to Re Impose Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to re-impose a stay of execution on a County Court judgment pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether delay in prosecution of appeal justifies lifting the stay
  3. 3 Assessment of hardship and risk of injustice to parties

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-impose the stay was refused because the Defendants were responsible for substantial and unjustified delay in prosecuting the appeal, the appeal was found to have no real prospect of success, and the continued stay was causing real hardship to the Claimant. The balance of justice no longer favoured a stay of execution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the Claimant's costs reserved by Ritchie J at paragraph 5 of his order of 2.12.22 and the costs of and occasioned by the application to set that order aside, summarily assessed at £8,500.