1999/29 - Planning v Lesquende [1999] UR 29 (9 February 1999)
It is unjust for the defendant to retain the sum paid under an arbitration award that has been quashed, especially where the defendant itself sought to set aside the award. The Court finds no sufficient prospect of success on appeal and exercises its discretion to refuse a stay of execution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] UR 29
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Planning and Environment Committee; Defendant: Lesquende Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 09 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay refused
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Summary Judgment, Restitution, Judicial Review, Arbitration Award, Compulsory Acquisition
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Planning and Environment Committee
Plaintiff
Lesquende Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal against summary judgment for restitution of a quashed arbitration award
- 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to retain the sum paid under a quashed award
Ratio Decidendi
It is unjust for the defendant to retain the sum paid under an arbitration award that has been quashed, especially where the defendant itself sought to set aside the award. The Court finds no sufficient prospect of success on appeal and exercises its discretion to refuse a stay of execution.
Court Disposition
application for stay refused
Orders
- Stay of execution pending appeal is refused.
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