Bone v Williamson [2022] EWHC 3158 (KB) (09 December 2022)

Bone v Williamson [2022] EWHC 3158 (KB) (09 December 2022)

The enforcement agent, not the High Court Enforcement Officer, is the correct respondent to a fees dispute under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, as the regulations confer the right to recover fees solely on the enforcement agent. The evidence supported the finding that the Notice of Enforcement was properly served.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3158 (KB)
Parties
Appellant: Trevor Bone; Respondent: Simon Williamson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Sullivan Dated 10 February 2021
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014, High Court Enforcement Officers, Enforcement Agent Liability, Costs Orders, Notice of Enforcement
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 High Court Enforcement Officers Enforcement Agent Liability Costs Orders Notice of Enforcement

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Bone

Appellant

Simon Williamson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Sullivan Dated 10 February 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a High Court Enforcement Officer is an appropriate defendant to a dispute over fees levied by an enforcement agent under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Enforcement was validly served

Ratio Decidendi

The enforcement agent, not the High Court Enforcement Officer, is the correct respondent to a fees dispute under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, as the regulations confer the right to recover fees solely on the enforcement agent. The evidence supported the finding that the Notice of Enforcement was properly served.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • Costs to be determined by further order