England and Wales Case Law

Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson

The HCEO is the proper respondent to a dispute about enforcement fees under a writ of control because the statutory scheme makes the HCEO responsible for the proceeds of enforcement, entitled to fees, and liable for the acts of the HCEA. The debtor is entitled to bring a fees dispute against the HCEO, and the HCEO should not be shielded from liability by the actions of the HCEA. The lower courts erred in holding otherwise.

Source excerpt

• High court enforcement officers
• Enforcement agents
• Writ of control
• Liability for fees
• Costs orders

Read case analysis

Bone v Williamson

Bone v Williamson [2024] EWCA Civ 4 (11 January 2024)

Court of Appeal held that an HCEO is the correct defendant in a fees dispute under regulation 16, and that Schedule 12 is not self-contained.

• High court enforcement officers
• Enforcement agents
• Writ of control
• Fees disputes
• Vicarious liability
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson

The High Court dismissed an appeal over enforcement fees, holding that the enforcement agent, not the HCEO, was the proper defendant. Service of notice was also upheld.

• High court enforcement officers
• Enforcement agent fees
• Taking control of goods
• Vicarious liability
• Service of notice
• Enforcement-of-judgments

Read case analysis

Bone v Williamson

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

The High Court dismissed a debtor’s appeal, holding that an enforcement agent, not the High Court Enforcement Officer, is the proper respondent in a fees dispute.

• Taking control of goods (fees) regulations 2014
• High court enforcement officers
• Enforcement agent liability
• Costs orders
• Notice of enforcement
• Enforcement-of-judgments

Read case analysis

365 Business Finance Ltd v Bellagio Hospitality WB Ltd & Anor

365 Business Finance Ltd v Bellagio Hospitality WB Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 588 (06 May 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that writs of control have chronological priority, even when directed to different enforcement officers, and proceeds must be applied to the earlier writ first.

• Writs of control
• Priority of enforcement
• High court enforcement officers
• Schedule 12 tribunals courts and enforcement act 2007
• Conversion
• Application of proceeds

Read case analysis

Court Enforcement Services Ltd v Burlington Credit Ltd

Court Enforcement Services Ltd v Burlington Credit Ltd [2019] EWHC 1920 (QB) (19 July 2019)

The High Court held that writs of control are ranked by the time they are received by the person under a duty to endorse them, and proceeds must follow that priority.

• Writs of control
• Priority of enforcement
• High court enforcement officers
• Schedule 12 tribunals courts and enforcement act 2007
• Civil procedure rules 83.4
• Writs-of-control

Read case analysis

Philcox v Wilson & Anor

Philcox v Wilson & Anor [2018] EWHC 3138 (QB) (16 November 2018)

The High Court made an Extended Civil Restraint Order against Martin Philcox for two years after finding a persistent pattern of totally without merit applications.

• Civil restraint orders
• Abuse of process
• Vexatious litigation
• High court enforcement officers
• Civil-restraint-orders
• Abuse-of-process

Read case analysis

Philcox v Wilson & Anor

Philcox v Wilson & Anor [2018] EWHC 3138 (QB) (16 November 2018)

The High Court made an Extended Civil Restraint Order against Mr Philcox after finding he had persistently brought totally without merit claims and applications.

• Civil restraint orders
• Abuse of process
• Vexatious litigation
• Employment dismissal
• High court enforcement officers
• Civil-restraint-orders

Read case analysis

Celador Radio Ltd v Rancho Steak House Ltd (Equitable Interpleader - Enforcement)

Celador Radio Ltd v Rancho Steak House Ltd (Equitable Interpleader - Enforcement) [2018] EWHC 219 (QB) (16 February 2018)

The High Court held that equitable interpleader relief remains available where CPR Part 85 does not cover a third-party title dispute in enforcement.

• Interpleader
• Controlled goods
• High court enforcement officers
• Cpr part 85
• Title to goods
• Third party claims

Read case analysis

Celador Radio Ltd v Rancho Steak House Ltd (Equitable Interpleader - Enforcement)

Celador Radio Ltd v Rancho Steak House Ltd (Equitable Interpleader - Enforcement) [2018] EWHC 219 (QB) (16 February 2018)

The court addressed disputed third-party claims to controlled goods under CPR Part 85 and held that equitable interpleader relief could fill a procedural gap.

• Interpleader
• Controlled goods
• High court enforcement officers
• Cpr part 85
• Title to goods
• Third party claims

Read case analysis