Virgo-Williams v SHCE Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 1073 (KB) (14 May 2025)

Virgo-Williams v SHCE Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 1073 (KB) (14 May 2025)

The evidence overwhelmingly established that the claimant was 'Donna William', director and person with significant control of YSL, and that the business at 7-11 Spray Street was a continuation of YSL. The enforcement agent's belief that the goods belonged to YSL was reasonable. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the goods were hers and not YSL's. The claim was dishonest and failed.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1073 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Samantha Virgo-Williams; First Defendant: SHCE Limited; Second Defendant: Takepayments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Writ of Control, Ownership of Seized Goods, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12 Procedures, Identity and Control of Business, Dishonesty in Evidence
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Writ of Control Ownership of Seized Goods Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 Procedures Identity and Control of Business Dishonesty in Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samantha Virgo-Williams

Claimant

SHCE Limited

First Defendant

Takepayments Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the enforcement agent reasonably believed the seized goods belonged to the judgment debtor (YSL)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant proved ownership of the seized goods and lack of connection to YSL

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence overwhelmingly established that the claimant was 'Donna William', director and person with significant control of YSL, and that the business at 7-11 Spray Street was a continuation of YSL. The enforcement agent's belief that the goods belonged to YSL was reasonable. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the goods were hers and not YSL's. The claim was dishonest and failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Goods seized to be returned to the First Defendant.
  • Written submissions on costs and permission to appeal to be provided; preliminary view is costs to defendants on indemnity basis.