Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK
 EWHC 3166 (TCC)
We reported on this case in Issue 215 where Mr Justice Fraser extended the lists of circumstances set out in the Wimbledon v Vago case (see Issue 65), where a stay of execution might be granted on an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision to include the following:
“(g) If the evidence demonstrates that there is a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied by reason of the claimant organising its financial affairs with the purpose of dissipating or disposing of the adjudication sum so that it would not be available to be repaid, then this would also justify the grant of a stay.”
Mr Justice Fraser imposed a stay and Gosvenor appealed. LJ Coulson began by endorsing the principle identified above. He also agreed with Mr Justice Fraser that the number of cases where the new addition will be relevant to the granting of a stay of execution is likely to be small, and the number where there may be an overlap between the evidence that was or could have been deployed in the adjudication, and the evidence justifying a stay on the grounds of risk of dissipation, will be fewer still. The CA then went on to consider if the new principle had been properly applied. It had. Mr Justice Fraser had been entitled to come to the view that he did and, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a stay of execution of the adjudicator’s decision.