Samantha Virgo-Williams v SHCE Limited & Anor

An enforcement agent may take control of goods where the statutory conditions for entry are met and the agent reasonably believes that the premises are a place where the debtor carries on business. The court assesses the reasonableness of that belief by reference to the information available to the agent at the time, including business records, trading names, addresses, company information and surrounding circumstances. A claimant seeking the return of seized goods must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the goods do not belong to the debtor. Where the evidence shows that an apparently separate business is in reality a continuation of the debtor’s business, documentary evidence of individual purchases may be insufficient to discharge that burden.

The claimant, who operated a restaurant at 7–11 Spray Street, sought relief under Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 section 62 and paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 after enforcement agents seized goods under a writ issued against Yardman Styles Limited. She denied any connection with that company or with its director, “Donna William”, and claimed ownership of the seized goods.

The court had to determine whether the enforcement agent reasonably believed that the premises contained goods belonging to the judgment debtor and whether the claimant had proved that the goods belonged to her rather than to the debtor.

1. The claim was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendants. The seized goods were to be returned to the First Defendant. Consequential questions concerning costs and permission to appeal were reserved.

2. Under paragraphs 9 and 14 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, an enforcement agent may take control of goods on premises where the agent has power to enter, including premises which the agent reasonably believes are a place where the debtor carries on business.

3. The enforcement agent held the requisite belief that the goods at 7–11 Spray Street belonged to Yardman Styles Limited. That belief was reasonable. Relevant matters included the debtor’s use of the premises as its merchant address, the matching bank-account details, company records linking “Donna William” to the premises, the similarity and continuity of the restaurant businesses, a food-hygiene certificate in the debtor’s name, invoices in that name, and the claimant’s communications with the enforcement agent.

4. The claimant bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the goods did not belong to the debtor. The evidence established that the restaurant operated by the claimant was in reality a continuation of the debtor’s business, conducted through the same bank account under a different name, and that the claimant and “Donna William” were the same person.

5. The claimant’s purchase documents did not establish ownership independently of the debtor. Several purchases had been funded from the relevant business account. The court found that the claimant had been dishonest in denying her connection with the debtor company and its director. The claim therefore failed.

This was a first-instance trial decision following interim and case-management orders made during the proceedings. No appellate decision is stated in the judgment.