Key Facts
- •Complete Ceiling and Partitioning Systems Limited (Claimant) sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award against DE1 Limited (Defendant).
- •The Defendant did not dispute the award but raised concerns about the Claimant's solvency and sought a stay of enforcement.
- •The Claimant initially refused to provide financial information, arguing it was not obligated to do so before enforcement proceedings.
- •After the Defendant issued its stay application, the Claimant provided financial information, leading the Defendant to withdraw its stay application.
- •The court considered the issue of costs for both applications.
Legal Principles
There is no general obligation on a party seeking enforcement to disclose confidential financial information to allow the other party to assess grounds for a stay.
Farrelly (M&E) Building Services Ltd v Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd [2013] EWCA 1186
The evidential burden for a stay application lies with the applicant, and it is a high burden. The applicant is not entitled to a fishing expedition for confidential commercial information.
BN Rendering Ltd v Everwarm Ltd [2018] EWHC 2356 (TCC)
If a Claimant is insolvent, a stay of execution will usually be granted.
Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Limited v Derek Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 (TCC)
CPR 1.3 requires parties to help the court further the Overriding Objective, including saving expense and allocating resources appropriately.
CPR 1.3
Outcomes
No order as to costs was made on either application.
The court found that the Claimant's refusal to provide requested financial information before proceedings, despite its apparent insolvency, was contrary to the Overriding Objective and the principles of reasonable conduct in litigation. Had the information been provided earlier, the Defendant would likely have paid the award, avoiding the need for proceedings.