Read the full judgment text of CACV 285/1998 and CACV 346/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 April 2000 before Mayo V-P, Keith JA and Ribeiro JA.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Judgment creditor seeks execution on judgment against Third Party — Third Party appeals to Court of Final Appeal — Whether stay pending appeal should be granted — Principles that stay pending final appeal is exceptional — Balancing injustice between parties — Protection of respondent's interests by receiver or payment into court as condition — Third Party unable to provide such protection — Stay refused — Order for sale and appointment of receiver left to trial judge. The case concerned competing interests of Defendant and Third Party regarding enforcement of judgment involving a building of declining value, with judgment debt exceeding asset value. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the application for stay of execution pending appeal, emphasizing need for security measures to protect judgment creditor’s interests. The matter was remitted for trial judge to determine whether to order sale and how to deal with proceeds. Counsel for all parties appeared. No statutes were cited beyond practice directions. The principal legal issue decided was on procedural grounds concerning stay of execution pending appeal. The outcome was dismissal of stay application; further orders on sale to be decided by Burrell J.
Legal issues: Stay of execution pending appeal
Outcome: Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed.
Cites 2 cases