Key Facts
- •Ripple Markets APAC Pte. Ltd. (Claimant) obtained default judgments against P Dot Money Limited (formerly Taasai FS Ltd) (D1) and Mr Michael Nyananyo (D2) for US$12,780,530.35 plus fees and interest.
- •The judgments stemmed from a 'Master XRP Commitment to Sell Agreement' where D1 allegedly received digital assets but failed to make full payment.
- •D1 and D2 applied for a stay of execution of the default judgments pending their application to set aside those judgments.
- •D1 argued the agreement created a revolving credit facility, not a debt immediately due, and that C misled them by obtaining default judgment while seemingly aware they hadn't received proper notice.
- •D2 argued the claim against him was inadequately pleaded, lacking allegations of bad faith or breach of fiduciary duty.
Legal Principles
CPR 83.7 governs stays of execution of money judgments. A stay can only be granted if the criteria in CPR 83.7(4) are satisfied.
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair (No. 2) [2017] 1 WLR 3069
On an application under CPR 83.7(4)(b) (inability to pay), the applicant must establish inability to pay and then persuade the court to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.
Mark Arthur Andrew v Flywheel it Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 3746 (Comm)
The court will usually enforce no set-off clauses in contracts, requiring strong reasons to grant a stay despite such clauses.
Credit Suisse International v Ramot Plana OOD [2010] EWHC 2759 (Comm)
Ordinarily, a cross-claim does not justify a stay of execution under CPR 83.7, requiring 'special circumstances'.
Dar al Alkan Real Estate Co v Al Refai [2015] EWHC 1793 (Comm)
For stays pending appeals, the applicant must show solid grounds, usually some form of irremediable harm if no stay is granted. Evidence must be full, frank, and clear.
Mahtani v Sippy [2013] EWCA Civ 1820; Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2065
A director is not liable for inducing a breach of contract by their company unless they acted in bad faith or outside their authority.
Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 498; Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency (22nd ed) para 9-121
Outcomes
Stay of execution granted for the claim against D2.
The court found there was a likely defence with a real prospect of success, concluding no execution should issue before the application to set aside is considered.
Stay of execution granted for the claim against D1 (Taasai), but conditional.
The court found Taasai likely did not receive notice of proceedings until after default judgment, their application to set aside was timely, and they had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. However, conditions were imposed to balance the interests of both parties.