Safira Akram v Academy Doors and Windows Ltd & Anor.

Safira Akram v Academy Doors and Windows Ltd & Anor.

The application to re-impose the stay is dismissed because the Defendants were responsible for significant delays in prosecuting the appeal, the appeal is weak with no real prospect of success, and the Claimant continues to suffer hardship. The balance of justice now favours enforcement of the judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Safira Akram; First Defendant: Academy Doors and Windows Limited; Second Defendant: Chander Shekhar Lal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Vary/lift Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Summary Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Contract Law Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Summary Assessment of Costs

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 5 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

Civil Appeal / Application to Vary/lift Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of execution pending appeal should be re-imposed or remain lifted
  2. 2 Whether the delays in prosecuting the appeal justify lifting the stay
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has real prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-impose the stay is dismissed because the Defendants were responsible for significant delays in prosecuting the appeal, the appeal is weak with no real prospect of success, and the Claimant continues to suffer hardship. The balance of justice now favours enforcement of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the 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.