An Adjudicator decided that Cadogan should pay Rainford £77,350.75. Rainford sought to enforce that decision, although it was in administrative receivership. Cadogan argued that the decision should not be enforced as it had a defence and a substantial counterclaim, and if the Cadogan made good the counterclaim at some later date, Rainford would no longer be solvent.

The Judge stated that the question of whether to grant a stay of execution depended on the facts of each case. The Court will look for credible evidence of the claimant’s present financial position, however vague fears or rumours of insolvency are not sufficient. In the present case, the evidence, which had not been refuted, was that Rainford was in administrative receivership and this raised a strong prima facie case that it was insolvent. A stay of execution was granted pending the trial of Cadogan’s counterclaim subject to Cadogan paying the judgement sum into court and Rainford having permission to apply to lift the stay in the event of it being willing to provide security for the repayment of that sum.