Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd
[2024] UKSC 6
Michael Burton v Ministry of Justice
21 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 681
Court of Appeal
A man's car was wrongly clamped by a debt collector. Even though the government (the creditor) didn't directly order the clamping, the court said they were still responsible for paying the man compensation because the debt collector was working on their behalf. The court also decided how much the man should be paid for the inconvenience of having his car clamped.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Burton was fined £193 for speeding, resulting in a £308 debt to the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).
- •A warrant of control was issued, and an enforcement agent, Mr. Allen, clamped Mr. Burton's hire-purchase vehicle despite being informed of the hire-purchase agreement.
- •Mr. Burton sued the MOJ for damages under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA).
- •The lower courts had conflicting decisions on the MOJ's liability and the quantum of damages.
Legal Principles
A judgment creditor may be ordered to pay damages for a judgment debtor's losses resulting from an enforcement agent's breach of the TCEA's statutory procedure, even without the creditor's act or omission.
Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12, TCEA
The enforcement agent is not simply the agent of the creditor but also an officer of the court.
CES Limited v Marston Legal Services Ltd [2021] 1 QB 129
A debtor is entitled to both damages for loss of use of a vehicle and special damages (e.g., transport costs) even if special damages mitigate the loss of the vehicle.
Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 647
Damages for loss of use of a private vehicle should be based on a broad assessment of non-pecuniary loss for disruption and inconvenience, not necessarily spot hire rates.
Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 647; Lagden v O’Connor [2002] UKHL 64
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The MOJ, as the creditor, was liable for damages due to the enforcement agent's breach, regardless of whether it caused or contributed to the loss. Mr. Burton's evidence of loss, though lacking detail, was sufficient.
Judgment was entered for Mr. Burton against the MOJ for £905 plus interest.
This amount covered Mr. Burton's claimed general damages (£725) and special damages (£180) for the wrongful clamping of his vehicle. The court found his evidence sufficient despite lacking detailed receipts.