Marley (UK) Ltd v Alcock

A pending application to the European Court of Human Rights does not justify staying domestic enforcement between private parties. Convention obligations bind public authorities, and any remedy cannot alter the parties’ rights under a domestic judgment or charging order. In determining enforcement, the court may focus on the validity and enforcement of the charging order rather than the history of the underlying dispute. A will can produce partial intestacy where it disposes of some interests but leaves property undisposed in a specified event. The undisposed property then passes on intestacy. A charge may be enforced by sale after considering the evidence, including value, equity and the impact on occupation, while taking Article 8 into account.

Marley (UK) Ltd v Alcock concerned an application for permission to appeal against an order made by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, on 18 May 2005. The order directed the sale of property to enforce a charging order securing costs arising from earlier litigation.

The applicant argued that he had no sufficient beneficial interest because of his late mother’s will. He also sought a stay pending proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and relied on wider grievances, alleged Convention breaches, the property’s value, delay and accruing interest. The central question was whether there was a reasonable prospect of successfully appealing the order for sale.

1. Permission and scope. The only issue was whether the applicant had reasonable grounds for persuading the Court of Appeal, on a full appeal, that the enforcement order was wrong. The application had no such prospect.
2. Human rights proceedings. Convention obligations bind public authorities and do not operate between private persons. An order of the European Court of Human Rights could not alter the rights and obligations between the applicant and the claimant. Pending European proceedings therefore had no relevance to the proper domestic enforcement order and did not justify a stay. The applicant was also required to pursue his domestic remedies to a conclusion before seeking a remedy from that court.
3. Relevance of the underlying history. The judgment and charging order remained valid and had not been appealed. The applicant’s grievances concerning the original dispute, the conduct of the litigation, legal aid, his employment and dealings with his late mother were irrelevant to whether the charging order should be enforced.
4. Beneficial interest. A will may result in partial intestacy where it disposes of particular interests but leaves an asset undisposed of in a specified event. The will gave the applicant a life interest and provided for his dependent children, but did not dispose of the property if he died without qualifying children. The undisposed interest therefore passed to him as his mother’s sole next of kin. He accordingly held an equitable fee simple, or an interest sufficiently equivalent to one, on which the charging order could bite.
5. Order for sale. The judge was entitled to exercise his discretion on the evidence before him. That evidence indicated gross proceeds of about £300,000 and no significant risk of homelessness. The effect on the applicant’s home and workshop, and Article 8 of the Convention, were relevant considerations but did not prevent enforcement.
6. Final order. The application for permission to appeal was refused and was recorded as entirely without merit. No civil restraint order was made because that would have been premature without notice and in circumstances where the usual threshold had not been reached.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 11 November 2005, Lord Justice Lloyd refused permission to appeal against the order for sale and recorded the application as entirely without merit.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: On 18 May 2005, His Honour Judge Norris QC ordered the property to be sold to enforce the charging order.
• Earlier procedural ruling: Waller LJ dismissed an application for permission to appeal against directions limiting the evidence on 11 April 2005.