Guernsey Legal Resources

    If two (or more) separate sets of proceedings are materially related, it may be just and convenient to stay one (or some) of them pending the final determination of the other(s). If the parties do not agree that an action should be stayed while another proceeds, the court, whether on the application of a party or on its own initiative, may decide whether to order a stay. As the question arises in many different circumstances and procedural settings, there are no general principles available to guide the court in the exercise of its discretion in the matter (2 Civil Procedure 2005, para. 9A–168, at 2190–2191).

    The court may be persuaded to order a stay where the sets of proceedings involve the same parties and the same issues (Slough Estates Ltd. v. Slough B.C., [1968] Ch. 299, applied), especially as it may avoid unnecessary costs and delays, as well as ensure that one party is not burdened with the same claim more than once. If two courts are faced with substantially the same question, it is desirable that the question only be debated in one court, if justice can be done by such means (Thames Launches Ltd. v. Trinity House Corp. (Deptford Strond) (No. 1), [1961] Ch. 197, dicta of Buckley, J. applied).

    The case for a stay is weaker where there is merely a considerable degree of common ground between several claims (J. Bollinger S.A. v. Goldwell Ltd. (No. 1), [1971] F.S.R. 405, applied), and some early authorities suggest that a stay will not be granted if the issues in the proceedings are not the same (Adamson v. Tuff (1881), 44 L.T. 420, applied; Higgins v. Woodhall (1890), 6 T.L.R. 1, applied; Perry v. Croydon B.C., [1938] 3 All E.R. 670, applied), though this is not a strict rule. A second action dealing with the same events as the first but alleging a different contract with different terms will not be stayed (Hardy v. Elphick, [1974] Ch. 65, applied).