The Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha Southall, Re

The court’s discretion to order sale in enforcement of a charging order is separate from the discretion to make the order final. Sale of a debtor’s home is a remedy of last resort, appropriate where the judgment debt will not realistically be paid without it. The court must consider Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, where relevant, sections 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. In cases of joint and several liability, the court controls the enforcement process and need not select a single debtor whose property bears the whole burden. It may order sales of several properties, while postponing possession to allow realistic arrangements for payment or alternative funding.

The judgment concerned three Part 8 claims seeking orders for sale of properties subject to final charging orders securing costs awarded in earlier charity proceedings concerning the internal affairs of Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha. The original claims had been dismissed, and the claimants were jointly and severally liable for the defendants’ costs.

The court also considered five applications to make further interim charging orders final. The properties included matrimonial and family homes, and the judgment debtors relied on hardship, partial payments, proposed alternative arrangements, and a possible claim against solicitors. The central issues were whether sales should be ordered, which properties should be sold, and whether enforcement should be postponed.

1. Orders for sale. The applications for orders for sale were granted. The court could not go behind the existing costs orders, which imposed joint and several liability. The combined certified costs exceeded £368,000, with interest, subject to stated credits.
2. The discretion to order sale under the charging-order procedure was distinct from the discretion to make a charging order final. Under the notes to Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Rule 73.10C, a charging order gives security, whereas an order for sale enforces that security. Sale of a home is a last resort, but was justified because there was no realistic prospect of the costs being paid otherwise than from the charity’s funds.
3. The court considered Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the properties were family or matrimonial homes. Their sale would cause significant hardship, but the hardship did not outweigh the judgment creditors’ interests in the circumstances.
4. In enforcing joint and several liability, the court’s role was to control the enforcement process rather than to assess the parties’ conduct or allocate ultimate contributions between them. It would be unfair to order only one property to be sold and leave that owner to pursue contribution proceedings. The fairer course was to order all three properties sold, avoiding the need to single out particular debtors.
5. Section 14 and the matters in section 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 were applied to the jointly owned property. Partial payments, the existence of another jointly owned property, personal hardship, and a possible claim against solicitors did not justify refusing or deferring enforcement indefinitely.
6. The orders for sale were postponed for two months, and the judgment debtors and their families were given until 22 September 2017 before possession was required. Further interim charging orders were made final against the Second, Third and Fifth Claimants. Applications concerning the Fourth and Sixth Claimants, whose bankruptcies intervened, were adjourned generally with permission to restore.

The judgment records that permission to appeal against the substantive proceedings was refused, and that a limited costs appeal was ultimately formally dismissed on 18 February 2016. Those matters formed part of the earlier litigation and were not appeals from this judgment.