Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors [2022] EWHC 2797 (Ch) (04 November 2022)

Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors [2022] EWHC 2797 (Ch) (04 November 2022)

The court held that although enforcement of the TPDO was reasonable and the Brakes had deliberately delayed compliance to enable Mrs Brake to enter a moratorium, the evidence did not establish that enforcement would be detrimental to Mrs Brake or significantly undermine the protections of her mental health crisis moratorium. The clinical evidence was found insufficient to show that enforcement against Mr Brake's pension would worsen Mrs Brake's mental health, given the asset was already frozen and unavailable to her. Therefore, the application for permission to enforce was granted.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2797 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Claimant: Andrew Young Brake; Defendant: Geoffrey William Guy; Defendant: The Chedington Court Estate Limited; Defendant: Axnoller Events Limited; Third Party: James Hay Pension Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2022
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Application / Application for Permission to Enforce Third Party Debt Order During Mental Health Crisis Moratorium
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Debt Respite Scheme, Breathing Space Moratorium, Mental Health Crisis Moratorium, Third Party Debt Order, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Insolvency Mental Health Law Debt Respite Scheme Breathing Space Moratorium Mental Health Crisis Moratorium Third Party Debt Order Enforcement of Judgments

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Claimant

Andrew Young Brake

Claimant

Geoffrey William Guy

Defendant

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant

Axnoller Events Limited

Defendant

James Hay Pension Trustees Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Application / Application for Permission to Enforce Third Party Debt Order During Mental Health Crisis Moratorium

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit enforcement of a third party debt order during a mental health crisis moratorium under regulation 7(2)(b) of the 2020 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether enforcement would be reasonable, non-detrimental, and not significantly undermine moratorium protections

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although enforcement of the TPDO was reasonable and the Brakes had deliberately delayed compliance to enable Mrs Brake to enter a moratorium, the evidence did not establish that enforcement would be detrimental to Mrs Brake or significantly undermine the protections of her mental health crisis moratorium. The clinical evidence was found insufficient to show that enforcement against Mr Brake's pension would worsen Mrs Brake's mental health, given the asset was already frozen and unavailable to her. Therefore, the application for permission to enforce was granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to the Guy Parties to enforce the third party debt order against Mr Brake's pension during Mrs Brake's mental health crisis moratorium.