This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR when seeking a stay. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. This Practice Note considers the question of when court proceedings can be stayed and how to lift such a stay. It identifies scenarios in which a party may apply for a stay of proceedings, including to allow for: • a jurisdictional challenge in a cross-border dispute • arbitration • an attempt to settle • pending the outcome of other proceedings, including related criminal proceedings • an opportunity to comply with a procedural requirement or court order In certain situations a claim may be stayed automatically pursuant to CPR 15.11—see Practice Note: Stay of civil proceedings—automatic stay under CPR 15.11. For information on staying an order or judgment pending an appeal, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations—Will the terms of the

This Practice Note considers two methods by which the Cayman Islands courts seek to uphold parties’ agreements to arbitrate disputes, namely: orders staying court proceedings in favour of arbitration; and, anti-suit injunctions restraining parties from breaching arbitration agreements. Note: the judgments of the Cayman Islands courts referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. An introduction to the Cayman Islands arbitration regime Arbitration proceedings where the seat of the arbitration is in the Cayman Islands, irrespective of where the parties are based, are governed by the Arbitration Act 2012 (the Arbitration Act). The Arbitration Act is based largely on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) and the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The Arbitration Act is based on three fundamental principles, namely (1) that the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without undue delay or expense; (2) that the parties should

Dispute Resolution analysis: On ordering a stay of execution pending appeal, was the court empowered to disapply, defer or vary the commencement or rate of interest under section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (JA 1838)? The court decided that while there was a power to defer the start date for statutory interest on judgments under JA 1838, s 17 and CPR 40.8(2), or even order a lesser amount albeit as a condition of the stay of execution (rather than altering the rate applying under JA 1838, s 17) (para [46]), the court would not do so on the facts of this claim; it can be inferred that successful claims for deferral of interest accruing would be relatively rare. Mr Justice Foxton provided an impressive and compelling historical review of the interplay between the section and the rules of court (historically and more recently under the CPR)—see paras [34]–[48]. Further, the court was convinced that grounds existed for a stay of execution given the Christ the King College (College)’s public status and parlous financial state. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister, at Hardwicke.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court granted a stay of enforcement and execution of two Maltese judgments pending Aerotron’s appeal against an earlier decision permitting their recognition and enforcement. Master Fontaine held that the court had jurisdiction to grant relief even though Hermes had not yet commenced formal enforcement proceedings. The judgment confirms that the central question on a stay remains the risk of injustice, assessed by balancing prejudice to both parties. Cogent evidence of likely non-repayment, threatened winding-up proceedings and consequential commercial harm outweighed the limited prejudice to Hermes from delayed payment.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Popplewell in the Commercial Court granted a stay of the litigation proceedings in favour of London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration having found that the matters raised fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement in a settlement deed. The English court shall stay proceedings pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) where a claim involves a dispute or difference which falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement (subject to certain exceptions in AA 1996, s 9(4)). Where prior interim relief has been granted by the court, it will generally be inappropriate for the court to continue that relief, as to do so would interfere with the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Instead, the question of interim relief should properly be left to the arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitral tribunal is unable to act effectively. The judge also considered the meaning of a ‘matter’ for the purposes of AA 1996, s 9. Written by Christopher Snell, barrister at New Square Chambers.

Singapore’s dual arbitration regime Singapore has a dual arbitration regime (as discussed in Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte Ltd [2015] 4 SLR 646 at [32] (not reported by LexisNexis® UK)).). The Singapore Arbitration Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed) governs domestic arbitration while the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed.) governs international arbitration, whether seated in Singapore or abroad. Section 5(2) of the IAA sets out when an arbitration is international. Under both section 6 of the AA and section 6 of the IAA, Singapore courts have the power to stay court proceedings when a party to an arbitration agreement commences court proceedings against any other party to the agreement. The exercise of such a power is premised on the fact that an arbitration agreement exists between the two parties and that there is a dispute between the parties which falls within the remit of that arbitration agreement. AA, s 6(1) and IAA, s 6(1) both specify that the appropriate time

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case is important for practitioners in understanding which court should determine matters of jurisdiction where there are parallel and competing proceedings in separate jurisdictions, and the tests to be applied in doing so. This was a case in which the parties disputed whether there was an English exclusive jurisdiction clause. The court held that it (and not the Italian court) should determine the question as to exclusive jurisdiction. Properly interpreted, the insurers had a good arguable case that the contracts conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts therefore no part of the proceedings should be stayed under Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Written by Iain G Mitchell QC (Scotland), barrister, at Tanfield Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Foskett J has stayed a solicitor/client assessment of costs where the client intimated a potential professional negligence claim against the solicitors. The upshot of the decision is that the court has an almost unlimited discretion to allow clients to obtain stays of solicitor/client detailed assessments if the client intimates a potential negligence claim against the solicitors. Written by Joshua Munro, barrister at Hailsham Chambers, London.

This Practice Note sets out the mandatory requirement to stay family proceedings where another EU Member State has already been seised with jurisdiction. This is applicable to a very limited number of situations involving the UK where proceedings were instituted before 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). For further comparative guidance on the position before and after IP completion day, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. The court has an independent function and responsibility to investigate and determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. In situations involving the UK, the mandatory requirement to stay proceedings where the court in an EU Member State has already been seised with jurisdiction applies where the proceedings are subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (known as Brussels II bis or Brussels IIA). The requirement, as described below, only applies in situations involving the UK where: • competing proceedings were issued in the UK or an EU Member State before IP completion day, or • one set of proceedings was issued before IP completion day in the UK

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further: Court specific guidance below. This Practice Note considers applications to stay execution of a judgment or order to pay a sum of money, also known as a money judgment. It also sets out the procedure for applications to stay enforcement of writs and warrants of control. Note that this Practice Note does not discuss stays of enforcement generally pending appeal—for guidance, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations—Will the terms of the order or judgment under appeal be stayed? For guidance focused specifically on stays of enforcement of costs orders, see Practice Note: Costs orders—payment and enforcement—Courts powers to stay enforcement of a costs order or costs certificate. A common alternative to applying for a stay of execution of a money judgment in the County Court before a warrant has been issued is

This Practice Note details the procedure, requirements and criteria for staying proceedings under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973) where there are concurrent proceedings in another jurisdiction. It also details the effects of a stay of proceedings and circumstances in which a stay will be mandatory or discretionary. See also Practice Notes: Staying proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction and Staying concurrent EU proceedings (where transitional provisions apply). For comparative guidance on the position before and after IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020), see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. The court has an independent function and responsibility to investigate and determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. Preliminary considerations DMPA 1973 distinguishes between those cases where the concurrent proceedings are continuing in: • a related jurisdiction, ie Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey (including Alderney and Sark) and the Isle of Man (DMPA 1973, Sch 1, para 8) (mandatory stay)—see: Concurrent proceedings in a related jurisdiction—mandatory stay • another EU Member State or the UK governed

This Practice Note sets out the limited circumstances in which the court may stay proceedings (whether or not there are concurrent proceedings in another jurisdiction) under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. It also details the relatively rare occasions when the court may grant an anti-suit or Hemain injunction. For comparative guidance on the position before and after IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020), see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. The court has an independent function and responsibility to investigate and determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. A party may apply for a stay of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction by applying the principle of forum non conveniens. This power existed prior to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973). The court exercises this jurisdiction sparingly and its inherent power is not abrogated by the DMPA 1973. See also Practice Notes: Staying proceedings under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and Staying concurrent EU proceedings. Forum non conveniens test The leading authority is the House