Moore & Ors v Sahota [2002] EWCA Civ 28 (22 January 2002)

Moore & Ors v Sahota [2002] EWCA Civ 28 (22 January 2002)

Given the lack of evidence of applicants' ability to pay and the short period until the appeal, a stay of execution is appropriate to prevent hardship, and permission to appeal is granted.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 28
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Malcolm Moore; Applicant: Michael Grahame Poskitt; Applicant: Oluremi Akim Agbaje; Respondent: Ravinder Paul Sahota
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Permission to appeal and stay of execution granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Permission, Partnership Dispute, Variation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Stay of Execution Appeal Permission Partnership Dispute Variation of Court Orders

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Malcolm Moore

Applicant

Michael Grahame Poskitt

Applicant

Oluremi Akim Agbaje

Applicant

Ravinder Paul Sahota

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the refusal to vary a conditional stay order

Ratio Decidendi

Given the lack of evidence of applicants' ability to pay and the short period until the appeal, a stay of execution is appropriate to prevent hardship, and permission to appeal is granted.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal and stay of execution granted

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the order granted until determination of the appeal due to start on 18th February 2002
  • Permission to appeal granted