Key Facts
- •Claimants (Patels) sought an order for sale of a property owned by the first defendant (Mrs. Awan) to satisfy a charging order.
- •The charging order secured an unpaid interim costs payment of £118,800 from an earlier case (HC-2014-000621).
- •The defendants argued the interim payment wasn't due and the charging order wasn't enforceable.
- •The defendants lacked sufficient evidence to support their arguments, partially due to inconsistent representation.
- •The property is the defendants' home and they raised concerns about their family's circumstances.
Legal Principles
Unrepresented litigants are still expected to comply with court rules.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018]
An interim payment on account of costs is a final judicial determination of a reasonable sum and is enforceable.
CPR 44.2(8)
Interim payments are enforceable by methods including charging orders, even if a detailed assessment of costs is pending.
Charging Orders Act 1979, CPR 70, PD 70A
The court has discretion to order sale of a property subject to a charging order, balancing the creditor's and debtor's rights.
CPR 73
Outcomes
The court ruled the interim payment was due and enforceable via a charging order.
The interim payment was a final judicial determination, not a contingent liability. The defendants' arguments regarding its enforceability were rejected.
An order for sale was granted.
While the court considered the defendants' family circumstances, the long-standing debt, the deteriorating financial position and lack of credible evidence in favour of the defendants outweighed these concerns. A three-month period was given for payment or surrender of possession.