Nerijus Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors

When enforcing a charging order, the court has a broad discretion whether to order sale. The fact that a sale will not discharge the whole judgment debt is not, by itself, a reason to refuse an order if it will make a substantial reduction. The court must weigh the creditor’s legitimate interest in enforcement against the Article 8 rights of people occupying a home and, where relevant, the factors in sections 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. A debtor’s home is not immune from execution. Health concerns and the position of adult children may justify postponing possession, but will not ordinarily prevent sale indefinitely. A proposed alternative to sale must be sufficiently detailed and realistic to demonstrate that it will produce payment within a defined period.

The claimants, 11 former poultry workers, obtained judgment debts against their former employer and its owners following findings of systematic underpayment. Charging orders were made over the interests of the second and third defendants in nine properties. The present Part 8 application sought orders for sale to enforce those charging orders.

The properties included investment properties, jointly owned land used in a farming business, a tenanted property, and the defendants’ home. The defendants relied on health issues, family occupation, tenants’ Article 8 rights, alleged security of tenure and informal refinancing and repair proposals. The central issues were whether sale should be ordered, how the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 factors and Article 8 should be considered, and whether any sale or possession should be postponed.

1. Orders for sale. The applications succeeded. Orders for sale were made over all nine properties, subject to the terms and postponements specified below.

2. The court’s discretion under CPR 73.10C(1) was not limited by the amount likely to be realised. Even if sale of all or some properties would not discharge the entire debt, a substantial payment and significant reduction of the judgment debt justified enforcement. The proposed alternatives were too imprecise to establish that they would produce payment within any defined period. They identified no lender, funding, costed works, reliable valuation strategy or workable oversight arrangement.

3. For the five inherited properties beneficially owned by the second and fourth defendants, the section 15 factors under TOLATA supported sale. The properties were not the second defendant’s home, there was no minor in occupation, and the fourth defendant herself wanted realisation of her interest. Orders were therefore made in the proposed form, with the staged 3 per cent reductions to the minimum prices.

4. The same conclusion applied to the land west of Old Tree Lane. The asserted farming security of tenure was unsupported by evidence and, even if it existed, would not prevent sale where enforcement required it.

5. The sale of 2 Quarry Cottage was ordered subject to the Patches’ occupation. Their Article 8 rights had to be balanced against the claimants’ rights as judgment creditors and the public interest in effective enforcement. A sale subject to occupation avoided further uncertainty. If no such sale occurred by 21 April 2025, the claimants could return to court.

6. Beresford Farm and adjoining land were the defendants’ home, engaging Article 8. Their home was not immune from execution. The health of the defendants and the position of their adult children did not outweigh the substantial overdue debt, the absence of another realistic source of payment and the need to realise further equity. Possession was postponed until 15 November 2024 to allow alternative accommodation to be arranged.