KA-2023-000225 - [2025] EWHC 2112 (KB)

The Appellant submits that since the application for permission to appeal is not before me and an application for a stay has been made to the Court of Appeal it would not be correct for me to entertain the application now. The Appellant refers to the White Book commentary at 52.16.3, which states that an application for a stay of a lower court order should be made to the lower court or to the appeal court. The Appellant further submits that a stay is the exception rather than the rule, requiring solid grounds, normally involving some form of “irremediable harm if no stay is granted”. The Appellant does not accept that the application meets this test. The Appellant points out that the Appellant’s Notice does not, in fact, request a stay in relation to any costs order and argues that an order requiring the Respondent to provide answers is “not an onerous or prejudicial exercise” and “clearly does not involve any form of irremediable harm,” describing it as a “straightforward task involving ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers”. The Appellant relies on the case of Edwards/Raubenheimer v Slater & Gordon UK Limited [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB), where a stay in relation to an order for further information was refused, referring to Warby LJ’s observation in that case that “compliance with the order for further information would show whether that aspect of the proposed appeal would be academic in the sense that there is nothing to argue about”, and suggests the same reasoning should apply here.