This was the latest hearing in a long-running dispute between the parties. The court had several
applications before it.
The first concerned the state of pleadings and Scott Schedule. The court ordered that it should be
rewritten due to a lack of particularisation and concentration on the essential facts.
Next there were two applications for a stay of execution of two summary judgments following two
adjudications. In the first, J&BH sought a stay of execution of a judgment in favour of A&V in Action
444 of 2022. In the second, A&V asked for a stay of proceedings in Action 6 of 2023 until the
enforcement judgment in Action 444 of 2022 had been complied with.
There was also an application for security for costs by J&BH in Action 6 of 2023.
A&V’s financial position was rele vant to all three applications. Based on information and evidence before the court from and since a previous hearing, it was, in the court’s judgment, clear beyond any doubt that A&V itself could not afford to pay any further sums at present. The corporate cupboard was
for all practical purposes bare, and it seemed wildly improbable that any commercial lender would lend
it any money now or in the foreseeable future. The court had also considered the means of those standing
behind the company, the Paduraru family, and concluded that they could not be expected to be able to
provide any significant further finance to A&V to satisfy even part of the judgment and the application
for security for costs.
Application for stay in Action 444 of 2022
Deriving jurisdiction from CPR 83.7 the court had a discretion to order a stay of execution if it was
satisfied that:
"(a) there are special circumstances which render it inexpedient to enforce the judgment or
order, or
(b) the applicant is unable from any reason to pay the money."
From previous cases and well-known principles and the matters decided in the previous hearing, the
court drew the following conclusions:
“ (1) In cases involving the enforcement of adjudicators' decisions, the Court should first decide whether to grant summary judgment; (2) In reaching that conclusion, the Court should not be distracted by a view that the adjudicator got his or her decision wrong or that the adjudicator's decision was less satisfactory than might be desirable;
13
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker