Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1795 (Ch) (15 July 2024)

Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1795 (Ch) (15 July 2024)

Orders for sale are granted as the only realistic means of enforcing the judgment debt, given the lack of payment by the defendants, the inadequacy and impracticality of alternative proposals, and the absence of compelling reasons under section 15 TOLATA or Article 8 ECHR to refuse or indefinitely postpone sale. The interests of the claimants as judgment creditors outweigh the interests of the defendants and occupants, with appropriate deferrals and conditions to mitigate hardship.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1795 (Ch)
Parties
Claimants: Nerijus Antuzis and others; First Defendant: DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd; Second Defendant: Jacqueline Judge; Third Defendant: Darrell Houghton; Fourth Defendant: Joanne Judge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (property/enforcement) / Disposal Hearing on Application for Orders for Sale of Charged Properties
Outcome
Orders for sale granted for all nine properties, with certain deferrals and conditions to protect occupants and allow time for alternative arrangements.
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Orders for Sale, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata), Enforcement of Judgments, Article 8 ECHR, Creditor Rights, Family Home Protections
Property Law Trusts Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Charging Orders Orders for Sale Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata) Enforcement of Judgments +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nerijus Antuzis and others

Claimants

DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd

First Defendant

Jacqueline Judge

Second Defendant

Darrell Houghton

Third Defendant

Joanne Judge

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (property/enforcement) / Disposal Hearing on Application for Orders for Sale of Charged Properties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders for sale should be made to enforce charging orders over nine properties to satisfy judgment debts owed to claimants
  2. 2 Whether the interests of occupants, including Article 8 ECHR rights, and health/financial circumstances of defendants justify refusal or postponement of sale
  3. 3 Whether alternative proposals for refinancing or settlement justify refusal or postponement of sale

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for sale are granted as the only realistic means of enforcing the judgment debt, given the lack of payment by the defendants, the inadequacy and impracticality of alternative proposals, and the absence of compelling reasons under section 15 TOLATA or Article 8 ECHR to refuse or indefinitely postpone sale. The interests of the claimants as judgment creditors outweigh the interests of the defendants and occupants, with appropriate deferrals and conditions to mitigate hardship.

Court Disposition

Orders for sale granted for all nine properties, with certain deferrals and conditions to protect occupants and allow time for alternative arrangements.

Orders

  • Orders for sale of five properties jointly owned by second and fourth defendants, with minimum sale price reduction mechanism.
  • Order for sale of land west of Old Tree Lane, with option for fourth defendant to purchase second and third defendants' shares at fixed price.