David Raymond Brierley v Frank Otuo & Ors
[2023] EWHC 919 (Ch)
Nerijus Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors
15 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1795 (Ch)
High Court
Workers won a big lawsuit against their bosses for unpaid wages. The bosses owned several houses, and the workers wanted the houses sold to pay the debt. The court agreed to sell the houses, but tried to make it fair to everyone involved, giving the people living in some of the houses extra time before they had to move.
Key Facts
- •Eleven Lithuanian chicken catchers (Claimants) sued their former employer (1st Defendant) and the employer's owners (2nd and 3rd Defendants) for breach of contract and inducing breach of contract.
- •Previous judgments awarded the Claimants £1,040,207.58 in damages and costs, with daily interest accruing.
- •The Claimants obtained charging orders over nine properties owned by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants (the 4th Defendant being the 2nd Defendant's sister).
- •The Claimants applied for sale of the properties to satisfy the judgment debt.
- •The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were unrepresented, the 3rd Defendant appearing in person and the 2nd Defendant represented by her sister due to illness.
- •Various valuations of the properties were presented, with significant discrepancies between the Claimants' and the Defendants' valuations.
- •The Defendants presented proposals for alternative arrangements to avoid property sales, but these were considered insufficiently detailed and practical.
- •The tenants of two properties were involved in the proceedings as their residency was impacted by the potential sale.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to grant an order for sale to enforce a charging order.
CPR 73.10C(1)
In exercising discretion regarding an order for sale, all circumstances must be considered, including the interests of secured creditors and occupants.
CPR 73.10C and White Book notes at paragraphs 73.10C1 and 73.10C.6-7
TOLATA (Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) factors are relevant even if the debtor is the sole owner.
Close Invoice Financing v Pile [2008] EWHC 1580 (Ch) and Fred Perry Holdings v Genis [2015] 1 P&CR DG5
Article 8 ECHR rights (right to respect for private and family life) must be considered, particularly concerning the debtor's home, but usually commercial interests prevail.
Bank of Ireland v Bell [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 920, Close Invoice Finance v Pile, Fred Perry Holdings v Genis
Outcomes
Orders for sale were made for five properties jointly owned by the 2nd and 4th Defendants.
The properties were inherited investments, the 4th Defendant supported the sale, and the 2nd Defendant's health was not relevant as these were not her home.
An order for sale was made for the land to the west of Old Tree Lane, allowing the 4th Defendant to purchase the 2nd and 3rd Defendants' shares.
The lack of evidence for security of tenure for the 3rd Defendant's farming business outweighed his interests.
Orders for sale were made for the three properties owned by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, but with deferrals for possession.
Balancing the Article 8 rights of the tenants and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants' family against the claimants' rights as judgment creditors, sales were ordered, but possession was deferred to allow for alternative arrangements.
Similar Cases
Kamlesh Patel & Ors v Isabelle Michelle Paule Awan & Anor
[2024] EWHC 464 (Ch)
Sharon Barnard v Gwendolyn Ruth Brandon & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3043 (Ch)
HM Revenue & Customs Commissioners v John Patrick Walsh
[2023] EWHC 2213 (Ch)
Prescott Place Freeholder Limited & Ors v Constantin Batin & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1445 (Ch)