CH v RN & Ors

For the purposes of RSC Order 46 rule 8, execution of a writ of sequestration concerns enforcement of the order for which the writ was issued, or the act of seizing assets or taking possession. It does not extend to consequential administration of sequestered assets, including payment of costs and the sequestrators’ remuneration. Where the order has been enforced, or the contemnor’s assets have been seized, within 12 months of issue, the writ has been wholly executed for the purposes of the rule and does not require renewal. The wider question whether rule 8 applies to writs of sequestration was left open.

The proceedings concerned a writ of sequestration issued after the First Defendant breached a child arrangements order by retaining the child and removing him to India. The child was subsequently returned, and sequestrators took possession of bank accounts and property belonging to the First Defendant. The sequestrators later sought directions for the administration and realisation of the assets and their discharge.

Because the writ had not been renewed, the court had to determine whether RSC Order 46 rule 8 required renewal after 12 months. The central issue was what amounted to execution for the purposes of that rule.

1. The court held that it was unnecessary to decide generally whether RSC Order 46 rule 8 applied to writs of sequestration. The issue was resolved on the assumption that the rule applied.
2. Execution under rule 8 does not mean completion of every function arising from the sequestration, including administration of assets, payment of costs or payment of the sequestrators’ remuneration. That interpretation would deprive the words for the purpose of execution of meaningful effect and would make renewal unnecessary while the sequestration remained unfinished.
3. The preferable meaning of execution was the act of enforcing the underlying order by taking possession of goods or property. The court considered that this interpretation was supported by the wording of rule 8, the relevant practice direction, the ordinary forms of writ, and the references in Arlidge on Contempt and the White Book to nothing having been levied under the first writ.
4. On the facts, execution had occurred within 12 months. The child’s return gave effect to the underlying order, and the sequestrators had also taken possession of the First Defendant’s bank accounts and property. The remaining steps were consequential acts concerning administration and discharge.
5. The writ was therefore wholly executed within the 12-month period and did not require renewal for the purpose of execution. The broader issue was expressly left for determination in a case presenting full argument.