Rayne, R (on the application of) v West London County Court

In execution-related interpleader proceedings, the County Court may direct the bailiff to withdraw from possession where the execution creditors admit the interpleader claim. A district judge’s status as high bailiff does not create an automatic conflict of interest. Directions concerning withdrawal from possession and case management do not determine the substantive rights of the interpleading parties. A challenge to a later order determining interpleader costs must be brought by the appropriate appellate route. Repeated claims or applications marked totally without merit may justify a civil restraint order under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 3.11 and Practice Direction C.

The claim arose from possession proceedings concerning a tenancy and the seizure of saleable possessions by a bailiff. The first claimant subsequently asserted that some seized goods belonged to him, and the landlords accepted that ownership was not disputed. The County Court directed the bailiff to withdraw from possession and made case management directions concerning costs. A district judge later dealt with costs, but that order was set aside after an objection based on an alleged conflict of interest. HHJ Knowles then determined the costs issue. The claimants sought judicial review, challenging the district judge’s jurisdiction and alleged conflict, and also seeking to challenge the costs decision.

1. The claim was dismissed as totally without merit. The district judge had jurisdiction to order the bailiff to withdraw from possession. Order 33 rule 2(1) of the County Court Rules, retained by Schedule 2 to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, required the execution creditors to notify the court whether they admitted or disputed the interpleader claim or sought withdrawal from possession. The landlords admitted the claim, so the withdrawal order was proper.
2. The district judge’s role as high bailiff did not create an inevitable conflict of interest. The withdrawal order and associated directions did not determine any issue between the interpleading parties. They were either required by the procedural rule or were case management orders.
3. The later costs decision could not properly be challenged in the Administrative Court. HHJ Knowles had dealt with the merits of the costs of the distraint, and permission to appeal had been refused. Any challenge therefore had to proceed through the Court of Appeal.
4. The court declined to make a civil restraint order at that stage. It nevertheless warned that Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 3.11 and Practice Direction C permitted restraint where a party persistently made claims or applications that were totally without merit. Such an order would impose a requirement to obtain permission before taking steps in identified litigation or making a fresh claim, but would not prevent legitimate claims.
5. There was no order for costs because the defendant had not appeared.

The judgment does not state a separate appellate history for the present claim. It records earlier County Court and Court of Appeal proceedings arising from the possession and interpleader litigation, but those decisions formed part of the same litigation.