Lewincamp v ACP Magazines Ltd (No 3)

Lewincamp v ACP Magazines Ltd (No 3) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Lewincamp, and the defendant, ACP Magazines Ltd. The case concerned a stay of orders, judgment sum, and costs. The plaintiff sought a stay of orders in relation to a previous judgment, which had been entered in the plaintiff's favour, but was now being appealed. The defendant opposed the stay, arguing that there were no special or exceptional circumstances to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion.

The legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff needed to show special or exceptional circumstances to obtain a stay of orders, and if not, whether there was any reason to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to grant a stay. The court also considered the plaintiff's resources to repay the judgment sum and the undertakings provided by the plaintiff and their legal representatives to the court.

In dismissing the application for a stay, the court found that the plaintiff had not identified any sound reason for the stay to be granted. The court held that it was not necessary to show special or exceptional circumstances for a stay to be granted, but that a reason to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion was required. The court considered the plaintiff's resources to repay and the undertakings provided to the court but found that they were insufficient to warrant a stay. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for a stay.