Bettervale v Warehouse Solutions International (No 2)

In the case of Bettervale v Warehouse Solutions International (No 2), the dispute centred on the execution of a writ of possession and the conditions under which a stay might be granted. The plaintiff, Bettervale, sought a writ of possession against the defendants, Warehouse Solutions International and another entity, following an eviction. The defendants applied for a stay of execution on the condition that they paid a specified amount into court. The amount included rental arrears which fell into two categories: the later arrears relating to a holding-over and the earlier arrears relating to debt owed for over a year. The defendants argued that a stay should be granted on the condition they paid the entire amount of the arrears, while the plaintiff contended that only the earlier arrears should be paid to secure a stay.

The court was required to determine whether the defendants could secure a stay of execution by paying a specified amount into court and, if so, which arrears should be included in that amount. The court needed to balance the principle that equity would require the defendants to bring themselves up to date on the current lease before granting a stay with the principle that the plaintiff should not be deprived of security for the entire judgment sum. Additionally, the court needed to consider the costs implications, particularly whether the defendants should bear the plaintiff's costs as the cases were inextricably interlinked.

The court held that equity required the defendants to bring themselves up to date on the current lease before a stay could be granted. However, this rationale did not extend to securing the entire judgment sum. The court ordered that the defendants pay only the earlier arrears, which related to debt owed for over a year, into court to secure the stay. As for the costs, the court found that the two defendants' cases were inextricably interlinked, sharing the same facts, issues, lawyers, counsel, and evidence. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs jointly and severally.