Sandbrook v Herring & Anor [2022] EWHC 2092 (QB) (25 January 2022)

Sandbrook v Herring & Anor [2022] EWHC 2092 (QB) (25 January 2022)

Section 23 of the Partnership Act 1890 applies and prohibits enforcement against partnership property for a partner's separate judgment debt except by charging order, but the enforcement officer and agent are bound to comply with the writ of control unless and until it is set aside. The officer is entitled to recover fees and exceptional disbursements from the proceeds of sale, subject to the court's assessment and the unresolved issue of whether the assets sold were partnership property. The court will not determine factual disputes about asset ownership or losses at this stage; such matters must be raised by separate application.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2092
Parties
Applicant (high Court Enforcement Officer): Claire Louise Sandbrook; First Respondent (judgment Debtor): Marcus Hugh Herring; Second Respondent (judgment Creditor): Christopher Mark Herring
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Procedural Posture
High Court Application (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment on Application for Summary Assessment of Enforcement Officer's Fees and Costs
Outcome
Partially determined; summary assessment of fees and exceptional disbursements allowed in principle, subject to further determination of factual issues regarding partnership property and losses.
Legal Topics
Writ of Control, Enforcement Against Partnership Property, Assessment of Enforcement Fees, Exceptional Disbursements, Section 23 Partnership Act 1890, Schedule 12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Partnership Law Writ of Control Enforcement Against Partnership Property Assessment of Enforcement Fees Exceptional Disbursements Section 23 Partnership Act 1890 +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Louise Sandbrook

Applicant (high Court Enforcement Officer)

Marcus Hugh Herring

First Respondent (judgment Debtor)

Christopher Mark Herring

Second Respondent (judgment Creditor)

Procedural Posture

High Court Application (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment on Application for Summary Assessment of Enforcement Officer's Fees and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement against partnership property for a partner's separate judgment debt is lawful under a writ of control
  2. 2 Whether the High Court Enforcement Officer is entitled to recover fees and exceptional disbursements from the proceeds of sale
  3. 3 Whether section 23 of the Partnership Act 1890 prohibits enforcement against partnership property under the writ

Ratio Decidendi

Section 23 of the Partnership Act 1890 applies and prohibits enforcement against partnership property for a partner's separate judgment debt except by charging order, but the enforcement officer and agent are bound to comply with the writ of control unless and until it is set aside. The officer is entitled to recover fees and exceptional disbursements from the proceeds of sale, subject to the court's assessment and the unresolved issue of whether the assets sold were partnership property. The court will not determine factual disputes about asset ownership or losses at this stage; such matters must be raised by separate application.

Court Disposition

Partially determined; summary assessment of fees and exceptional disbursements allowed in principle, subject to further determination of factual issues regarding partnership property and losses.

Orders

  • The High Court Enforcement Officer is entitled in principle to recover fees and exceptional disbursements as claimed, subject to further determination of the nature of the assets and any losses claimed by the respondent.
  • No determination is made at this stage as to whether the assets sold were partnership property or as to any damages or compensation for alleged unlawful seizure and sale.