CORAM The Hon. Ms. Ola Mae Edwards, Justice of Appeal (Ag.)
Case Name David Alan Pollock et al v Caribbean Ventures International Limited
(Liquidation) et al
[Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2007] and [Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2008]
Appellants: Mr. Marcus Foster
Respondents: Mr. Bota McNamara
Issue: Application for Stay of Execution pending appeal
Application for Stay of Execution of Receiver’s Order
Result: The decision was reserved. The Order and written reasons were delivered on
27th October, 2008. The Order provided as follows:
The Applications for a stay of the execution of the judgment of Cottle J.
delivered on the 13th August 2007 and a stay of the operation of the Receiver’s
order made on the 16th July 2008 and entered on the 7th August 2008 are
granted pending the determination of appeal No. 35 of 2007 or No 33 of 2008
whichever is first, on the following conditions:
(i) The Appellants, David Alan Pollock and Kelly Iverson Pollock, may
return to the property in question at Seagrape Crescent registered
as Block 1255B, Parcels 441 and 442 and occupy same from
Wednesday the 29th October 2008 at 1:00 p.m. until the
determination of appeal No. 35 of 2007 or No 33 of 2008, whichever is
(ii) The Appellants are restrained from dealing with the property in the
terms of paragraph 4 of the suspended Receiver’s order.
(iii) The respondent, Mr. Marcus Wide, and his attorney-at-law, their
servants or agents, shall be permitted to enter and carry out a
weekly inspection of the said property including the dwelling house
at a time to be agreed on by the parties and their counsel, and take
inventory of the premises.
(iv) The 2 appeals are adjourned for further case management directions
on Friday the 31st October 2008 at 2:00 p.m. when the parties are to
report on the adequacy of the arrangements in place.
(v) The costs of the 2 applications shall be costs in the appeal. Reasons: (1) A stay of execution should only be granted if the appellant would face ruin
without the stay, provided that the appeal had some prospect of success.
The appellants satisfied the evidential burden of proving that they would
be ruined if the stay was not granted and that the appeal against the
receiver’s order was arguable.
(2) Having regard to the affidavit evidence, the order, the law and submissions
of counsel, and having taken into account the uncertainty as to when the
transcripts of both proceedings will be available, the circumstances of the
appellants and the grounds of the appeals cumulatively take the
appellants’ case outside the ordinary. Special circumstances have
therefore been disclosed which should serve to prevent the ordinary rule
not to grant a stay from applying.
Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd. v Baker  1 WLR 321, Turkey v Awadh
 EWCA Civ 1471 and Winchester Cigarette Machinery Ltd. v Michael
John Payne and another (unreported) (QBD), No. FC3 93/6788/C Royal
Court of Justice, 10th December 1993 applied.