Alenezy v Shergroup Ltd [2022] EWHC 777 (QB) (01 April 2022)

Alenezy v Shergroup Ltd [2022] EWHC 777 (QB) (01 April 2022)

The Defendants unlawfully seized and retained the Claimant's vehicle in breach of their obligations under Schedule 12, Paragraph 10. Paragraph 60 and CPR Part 85 applied to the proceedings. The Claimant substantially complied with pre-action requirements. The Defendants' conduct, including failure to return the vehicle and non-compliance with the injunction, justified an indemnity costs order up to 4 March and standard costs thereafter.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 777 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Meshary Alenezy; First Defendant: Shergroup Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Mark Willsher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination Following Return Date Hearing After Interim Injunction
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Claimant; injunction discharged as complied with.
Legal Topics
Third Party Claims to Seized Goods, Enforcement Agent Liability, Costs Orders, CPR Part 85 Procedure, Schedule 12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Tort Third Party Claims to Seized Goods Enforcement Agent Liability Costs Orders CPR Part 85 Procedure Schedule 12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meshary Alenezy

Claimant

Shergroup Limited

First Defendant

Mr Mark Willsher

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination Following Return Date Hearing After Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants acted unlawfully in seizing and retaining the Claimant's vehicle
  2. 2 Whether CPR Part 85 and Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 applied
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the proceedings and on what basis

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants unlawfully seized and retained the Claimant's vehicle in breach of their obligations under Schedule 12, Paragraph 10. Paragraph 60 and CPR Part 85 applied to the proceedings. The Claimant substantially complied with pre-action requirements. The Defendants' conduct, including failure to return the vehicle and non-compliance with the injunction, justified an indemnity costs order up to 4 March and standard costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Claimant; injunction discharged as complied with.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs on an indemnity basis up to and including 4 March.
  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs on the standard basis from and including 5 March.