Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12 does not create a self-contained enforcement code. A writ of control is directed to the High Court Enforcement Officer, who authorises a certificated enforcement agent to use the Schedule 12 procedure.

The enforcement agent recovers fees but has no independent statutory entitlement to them. The High Court Enforcement Officer holds the enforcement proceeds, is entitled to enforcement fees, and remains legally responsible for authorised enforcement activity. A debtor may bring a fees dispute under regulation 16 against the High Court Enforcement Officer, with or without joining the enforcement agent. Both may also be defendants to a Schedule 12 damages claim where applicable.

A writ of control to enforce a judgment debt against Mr Bone was directed to Mr Williamson, a High Court Enforcement Officer. Mr Williamson authorised Mr Brown, a High Court Enforcement Agent associated with DCBL, to take control of Mr Bone’s goods. Fees charged after an enforcement visit were challenged, and a later visit took place despite a stay of execution.

Mr Bone applied for an assessment of fees and damages. The Master held that Mr Williamson was not the proper defendant to the fees dispute and made adverse costs orders. Lambert J dismissed Mr Bone’s appeal. Mr Bone appealed to the Court of Appeal on the central issue whether a High Court Enforcement Officer could be the defendant to a fees dispute arising from steps taken by an authorised enforcement agent.

1. Appeal allowed. The lower courts erred in treating Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the fees regulations as a self-contained scheme. It operates alongside Schedule 7 to the Courts Act 2003. The writ confers the enforcement power on the High Court Enforcement Officer. An enforcement agent may use the mandatory Schedule 12 procedure only when authorised by that officer.

2. The statutory scheme required the High Court Enforcement Officer to hold recovered money in a nominated account and to maintain insurance and audited accounts. It imposed no equivalent requirements on the enforcement agent. The agent recovers fees from enforcement proceeds, but the legislation gave the agent no independent entitlement to those fees. Their ultimate allocation depended on the arrangements between the officer and the agent.

3. By paragraphs 4(2) and 4(4) of Schedule 7, the High Court Enforcement Officer and an agent acting under the officer’s authority have the relevant duties and liabilities of a sheriff. They are jointly and severally liable for enforcement steps taken by the agent, subject to Schedule 12. The officer was a “related party” for paragraph 66 purposes. A debtor could therefore sue either the officer or the agent for Schedule 12 damages where an agent breached that Schedule.

4. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 did not restrict the identity of the parties to a fees dispute. Mr Bone was entitled, and it would generally be sensible, to sue Mr Williamson alone. The agent could be joined where necessary, but the debtor did not have to sue the agent.

5. The alternative argument about personal enforcement by a High Court Enforcement Officer was rejected. An officer is authorised by the Lord Chancellor, not appointed as court staff under section 2(1) of the Courts Act 2003. Unless also certificated as an enforcement agent, the officer must authorise a certificated agent to use the Schedule 12 procedure. A company cannot itself be authorised as an officer or certificated as an agent.

6. Mr Bone was not liable for Mr Brown’s or DCBL’s costs in the fees dispute or damages claim, since they were joined at Mr Williamson’s instigation. Mr Bone remained liable for Mr Williamson’s costs of defending the unsuccessful damages claim.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed Mr Bone’s appeal and held that Mr Williamson was a proper defendant to the regulation 16 fees dispute and to a Schedule 12 damages claim where applicable.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Lambert J dismissed Mr Bone’s appeal from the Master, holding that the enforcement agent, rather than the High Court Enforcement Officer, was the correct defendant to the fees dispute.
• High Court: Master Sullivan held that Mr Williamson was not the correct defendant to the fees assessment and made consequential costs orders.