E.On UK PLC & Anor v Safe Hosts Internet LLP [2026] EWHC 1071 (KB) (20 April 2026)

E.On UK PLC & Anor v Safe Hosts Internet LLP [2026] EWHC 1071 (KB) (20 April 2026)

In a non-violent, unresisted seizure under a writ of control, the legal burden is on the third party claimant (here, 4ON 365 Limited) to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it was the true owner or in possession of the goods at the time of seizure. On the evidence, 4ON established ownership or possessory rights to the majority of the disputed goods, and the Claimants failed to disprove this or establish that the Defendant had an interest in those goods. Therefore, the goods identified as belonging to 4ON must be released to it.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1071 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: E. ON UK PLC; Claimant: Npower Commercial Gas Limited; Defendant: Safe Hosts Internet LLP; Defendant: 4ON 365 Limited; Defendant: High Court Enforcement Officer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2026
Procedural Posture
High Court Enforcement/interpleader Proceedings / Judgment After Trial of Issue on Ownership of Seized Goods
Outcome
Claim by 4ON 365 Limited to the majority of the disputed goods succeeds; goods to be released to 4ON.
Legal Topics
Third Party Claims to Seized Goods, Burden of Proof in Enforcement, Ownership and Possession of Goods, Execution of Writs of Control, Civil Procedure Rules Part 85, Schedule 12 Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Civil Procedure Enforcement Law Property Law Third Party Claims to Seized Goods Burden of Proof in Enforcement Ownership and Possession of Goods Execution of Writs of Control Civil Procedure Rules Part 85 +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. ON UK PLC

Claimant

Npower Commercial Gas Limited

Claimant

Safe Hosts Internet LLP

Defendant

4ON 365 Limited

Defendant

High Court Enforcement Officer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Enforcement/interpleader Proceedings / Judgment After Trial of Issue on Ownership of Seized Goods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who bears the burden of proof in a third party claim to goods seized under a writ of control?
  2. 2 Did 4ON 365 Limited prove ownership or possessory rights to the disputed goods at the time of seizure?
  3. 3 Were the Claimants or the Defendant entitled to the seized goods under the enforcement process?

Ratio Decidendi

In a non-violent, unresisted seizure under a writ of control, the legal burden is on the third party claimant (here, 4ON 365 Limited) to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it was the true owner or in possession of the goods at the time of seizure. On the evidence, 4ON established ownership or possessory rights to the majority of the disputed goods, and the Claimants failed to disprove this or establish that the Defendant had an interest in those goods. Therefore, the goods identified as belonging to 4ON must be released to it.

Court Disposition

Claim by 4ON 365 Limited to the majority of the disputed goods succeeds; goods to be released to 4ON.

Orders

  • Goods identified in the agreed schedule as belonging to 4ON 365 Limited to be released to it.
  • Directions for the parties to agree any consequential matters and costs; liberty to apply.