Joy v Joy

The court may grant interim relief concerning property where a question about that property may arise on an application, including an enforcement application. An order for sale may be made where there is a good reason to sell quickly. That limb is a true alternative to the case of perishable property and is not confined by the ejusdem generis principle. Relief directed to securing or enforcing existing orders is distinct from relief that merely secures an as yet undetermined claim. Before enforcing an order capable of variation, the court should first determine whether it should be varied, suspended or remitted.

These proceedings concerned interlocutory applications arising from financial remedy proceedings between a wife and husband. The wife sought preservation and delivery up of a valuable Bentley racing car, with a view to its possible sale and the retention of the proceeds. The application followed earlier freezing and holding orders and the husband’s failure to comply with maintenance and legal services orders.

The central issues were whether the Bentley was relevant property for the purposes of FPR 2010 Part 20, whether the court had power to order its sale or preservation in connection with enforcement, and whether procedural irregularities in the without-notice application should prevent relief.

1. Interim jurisdiction. The Bentley was property as to which a question might arise on the wife’s enforcement application. An application for enforcement under rule 33.3(2)(b) therefore qualified as an application for the purposes of rule 20.2(2). The existence of ordinary seizure and sale procedures did not itself exclude an order for sale under rule 20.2(1)(c)(v).
2. Power to order sale. The words in rule 20.2(1)(c)(v) permitting sale where, for any other good reason, it was desirable to sell quickly were not limited by the preceding reference to perishable property. The two scenarios were true alternatives. In an appropriate case, the risk that a party would lose legal representation because existing orders remained unpaid could constitute a good reason for speedy sale.
3. Purpose of relief. The proposed orders were directed to securing and enforcing subsisting court orders, subject to the husband’s outstanding variation application. That purpose was materially different from providing security for an undetermined claim, the distinction discussed in UCB Home Loans Corporation Ltd v Grace [2011] EWHC 851 and Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1.
4. Variation before enforcement. Following the settled practice identified in Corbett v Corbett [2003] EWCA Civ 559, the court should determine whether an order susceptible of variation should be varied, suspended or remitted before embarking on enforcement.
5. Without-notice irregularities. The court accepted that duties of candour remained important, but concluded that the alleged irregularities did not justify withholding interim relief where jurisdiction existed and the relief was just. The Bentley was accordingly placed in the custody of agents for the wife, pending further determinations. The court did not at this stage order its sale. Permission to appeal and a stay were refused, subject to the possibility of a renewed stay application to the Court of Appeal.

First-instance interlocutory decision. The judgment records earlier without-notice orders made by Cobb J on 23 January 2014 and subsequent holding orders, but no appellate decision.