Haydock Finance Ltd v Louis Transport Equipment Consultants Ltd & Ors

Haydock Finance Ltd v Louis Transport Equipment Consultants Ltd & Ors

No grounds were advanced to justify a stay of execution. There was no evidence the appellants could not pay or that repayment would be at risk if the appeal succeeded. The claimant was entitled to enforce the judgment, and the application for a stay was without merit.

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, Enforcement of Judgment
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Costs Enforcement of Judgment

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 Whether the claimant's solicitors were justified in instructing the sheriff to levy execution
  3. 3 How costs should be assessed for the application and hearing

Ratio Decidendi

No grounds were advanced to justify a stay of execution. There was no evidence the appellants could not pay or that repayment would be at risk if the appeal succeeded. The claimant was entitled to enforce the judgment, and the application for a stay was without merit.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Orders

  • Costs to be assessed on the basis that the application could have been dealt with on paper
  • Costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis