Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair
The court held that CPR 83.7 was the relevant rule governing stays of execution of money judgments, requiring special circumstances. The judge below erred in applying CPR 3.1(2)(f). On the facts, no special circumstances justified a stay, especially given payments on account of arbitration costs and the changed litigation landscape. The 'pay as you go' principle should apply.
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Wilson & Partners Limited; Respondent: Thomas Ian Sinclair
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Registration of Foreign Judgments, Costs Enforcement, Discretion Under CPR 83.7
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited
Appellant
Thomas Ian Sinclair
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court had discretion to grant a stay of execution of registered foreign costs orders under CPR 83.7 or CPR 3.1(2)(f)
- 2 Whether special circumstances existed to justify a stay of execution
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that CPR 83.7 was the relevant rule governing stays of execution of money judgments, requiring special circumstances. The judge below erred in applying CPR 3.1(2)(f). On the facts, no special circumstances justified a stay, especially given payments on account of arbitration costs and the changed litigation landscape. The 'pay as you go' principle should apply.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The stay of execution ordered by Master Yoxall is lifted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment