Samantha Virgo-Williams v SHCE Limited & Anor

Samantha Virgo-Williams v SHCE Limited & Anor

The court found that the enforcement agent held a reasonable belief that the goods seized at 7-11 Spray Street were those of YSL, based on credible evidence including Companies House records, bank statements, and the claimant's own documents and statements. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the goods belonged to her and not to YSL. The evidence demonstrated that the claimant was, in fact, 'Donna William', director of YSL, and that YSC was a continuation of YSL under a different name. The claim was dismissed for dishonesty and lack of proof of ownership.

Parties
Claimant: Samantha Virgo-Williams; First Defendant: SHCE Limited; Second Defendant: Takepayments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (application Under Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Writ of Control, Ownership of Seized Goods, High Court Enforcement, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12 Claims
Civil Procedure Enforcement Law Writ of Control Ownership of Seized Goods High Court Enforcement Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 Claims

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

Civil Claim (application Under Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the enforcement agent held a reasonable belief that the goods seized at 7-11 Spray Street were those of YSL, based on credible evidence including Companies House records, bank statements, and the claimant's own documents and statements. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the goods belonged to her and not to YSL. The evidence demonstrated that the claimant was, in fact, 'Donna William', director of YSL, and that YSC was a continuation of YSL under a different name. The claim was dismissed for dishonesty and lack of proof of ownership.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Goods seized by the First Defendant to be returned to it.
  • Written submissions or agreed draft order on costs and consequential matters to be provided by 16 May 2025.