- with Finance and Tax Executives
Cripps recently acted for Aerotron Limited in the reported High Court decision in Aerotron Limited v Hermes Aviation Limited [2026] EWHC 2111 (KB), successfully obtaining a stay of enforcement of two Maltese judgments pending appeal.
The decision is a useful reminder that, where foreign judgments are subject to challenge in the High Court, a judgment debtor may not need to wait for enforcement proceedings to be commenced before applying for a stay. Where enforcement is threatened or contemplated, the court may be prepared to consider a stay application in advance.
Background and arguments before the Court
Hermes Aviation Limited had obtained two judgments against Aerotron in Malta; first in the First Hall of the Civil Court on 17 October 2018 and later in the Court of Appeal of Malta on 5 October 2023 (“Maltese Judgments”). Hermes then obtained an Article 53 certificate under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation, to enforce the Maltese Judgments in England.
By the circumstances of the case and Hermes’s financial position, Aerotron faced a real risk that it could be exposed to double liability in respect of payment of the Maltese Judgments. Cripps therefore applied under the ‘public policy ground (ordre public)’ at Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation for an order refusing recognition and enforcement of the Maltese Judgments in England.
The Stay application
Although Aerotron’s application for refusal of recognition and enforcement was dismissed at first instance, Aerotron lodged an appeal against that decision. Cripps then applied for a stay of enforcement of the Maltese Judgments pending determination of the appeal. The basis of the application was that Aerotron would suffer real prejudice if enforcement proceeded before the appeal was determined, in circumstances where there was a real risk that sums paid to Hermes would not be recoverable if the appeal succeeded
Outcome
The Court ordered a stay of the enforcement of the Maltese Judgments (together with the costs element of the first instance decision).
The Court accepted that it had jurisdiction to order a stay ahead of commencement of threatened enforcement proceedings. Moreover, the Court favoured Aerotron in the balancing exercise in determining the material prejudice Aerotron would likely suffer were a stay in enforcement refused as against the prejudice asserted by Hermes were the stay to be granted.
Learning points
The decision will be of interest to parties facing threatened enforcement of foreign judgments in England & Wales. It indicates that, under the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation, the court may be willing to grant a stay of enforcement before enforcement proceedings have actually been commenced, provided there is sufficient evidence that enforcement is threatened or contemplated.
That said, a stay remains an exceptional remedy. The Court will expect cogent evidence of the prejudice likely to be suffered by the judgment debtor if enforcement proceeds before the appeal is determined.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
