Aerotron v Hermes Aviation: High Court grants stay of enforcement pending appeal

The High Court has granted a stay of enforcement in a dispute over the recognition of two Maltese judgements, finding that Aerotron Limited would face a real risk of injustice if enforcement proceeded before its appeal was determined.

In Aerotron Limited v Hermes Aviation Limited [2026] EWHC 2111 (KB), Master Fontaine, sitting in retirement, considered Aerotron's application for a stay following her earlier judgement of 23 July 2026, which had dismissed Aerotron's bid to resist recognition and enforcement of the Maltese awards. Aerotron lodged an appeal against that decision on 30 July and sought to halt enforcement in the meantime, relying on Article 51 and Article 44(1)(c) of the Brussels Recast Regulation alongside several provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.

A preliminary dispute arose over jurisdiction. Hermes argued that no application for a stay could be made under Article 44 because it had not yet begun formal enforcement proceedings, despite having served an Article 53 certificate, demanded payment, and threatened a winding-up petition. Master Fontaine rejected that position, holding that the transitional provisions in CPR 74.7B(b) allowed an application even where no enforcement process had formally started, particularly given that steps such as winding up could cause irreversible reputational and financial harm before any formal enforcement mechanism was engaged. She found jurisdiction also existed under CPR 3.1(2)(g), given the proceedings already instigated through Hermes' certificate and Aerotron's earlier application.

Turning to the merits, Master Fontaine applied the long-established principle, drawn from Wilson v Church and Polini v Gray, that the court should ensure a successful appeal is not rendered worthless, alongside the balance of prejudice test set out in Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd. She noted, following Aura Communities Ltd v Huddinge Kommun, that a stay requires cogent evidence of solid grounds, given that a judgement creditor is ordinarily entitled to immediate payment.

The evidence favoured Aerotron. Hermes was found to be a dormant company that had not traded since 2015 and had filed no accounts with the Maltese Business Registry since incorporation in 2011, prompting the earlier finding of a strong likelihood of insolvency. By contrast, Aerotron demonstrated substantial financial standing and had deposited just over US$867,000 with its solicitors to cover the judgement debt, interest, and costs. Aerotron had also arranged to pay the sum into the Maltese court, though Hermes disputed that this would constitute valid discharge under Maltese law, without explaining why it would decline to authorise withdrawal of the funds.

Master Fontaine concluded that if Aerotron's appeal succeeded after payment had been made or enforced, recovery from Hermes would likely prove difficult, costly, and possibly unsuccessful, particularly given the threat of winding-up proceedings and the absence of any evidence of Hermes' capacity to repay. She found no comparable prejudice to Hermes, which had shown no urgency in receiving payment and could in any event be compensated through further interest.

The stay of enforcement and execution was granted accordingly, pending determination of Aerotron's appeal against the substantive judgement.

Amit Karia, instructed by Cripps LLP, appeared for Aerotron. Greg Callus, instructed by W Legal Limited, appeared for Hermes.