Blight v Meredith & Ors [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) (09 February 2012)

Blight v Meredith & Ors [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) (09 February 2012)

The transfer and crediting of the market value of shares to the Claimants constituted a sale within the meaning of the court order, and the court has jurisdiction to compel the Defendant to delegate his power to elect a pension drawdown for enforcement of the judgment debt.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 165 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Christopher John Blight; Claimant/appellant: David Meredith; Claimant/appellant: Karen Lewis; Defendant/respondent: Roger Brewster
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders below reversed and varied
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Equitable Execution, Sale of Shares, Third Party Debt Orders, Pension Rights, Fraud, Constructive Trust
Civil Procedure Equity Enforcement of Judgments Charging Orders Equitable Execution Sale of Shares Third Party Debt Orders Pension Rights +2 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Blight

Claimant/appellant

David Meredith

Claimant/appellant

Karen Lewis

Claimant/appellant

Roger Brewster

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer and crediting of shares to the Claimants constituted a 'sale' within the meaning of the court order
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to compel the Defendant to elect to draw down his pension for enforcement purposes
  3. 3 Whether the orders below were correctly made regarding the sale of assets and enforcement against pension rights

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer and crediting of the market value of shares to the Claimants constituted a sale within the meaning of the court order, and the court has jurisdiction to compel the Defendant to delegate his power to elect a pension drawdown for enforcement of the judgment debt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders below reversed and varied

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Orders of District Judge Nightingale dated 24 March 2011 reversed