Court Clarifies Liability and Responsibility in High Court Enforcement Fees Dispute

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 4
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson ([2024] EWCA Civ 4) presents an examination of liability and procedural matters within the framework of High Court Enforcement. In particular, the case addresses who is the correct defendant in a dispute over enforcement fees charged under a writ of control – the High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) or the High Court Enforcement Agent (HCEA). The Court of Appeal’s judgment provides clarification on the authorisation and responsibility structure under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA) and other relevant legislation.

Key Facts

The appeal arose from an initial claim against Mr. Bone that resulted in a judgment for £24,000. Subsequently, a writ of control was issued to HCEO Mr. Williamson, who engaged Mr. Brown (a HCEA from DCBL) to enforce the writ. Fees charged by Mr. Brown were contested by Mr. Bone, leading to a dispute over whether Mr. Williamson was the correct defendant in a regulation 16 Fees Regulations dispute. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether Schedule 12 to the TCEA is a self-contained scheme and who bears responsibility for the fees and proceeds of enforcement actions.

The following legal principles were central to the Court of Appeal’s decision:

  1. Non-Self-Contained Nature of Schedule 12: The Court found that Schedule 12 of the TCEA is not a self-contained scheme but operates in conjunction with the Courts Act 2003 and other regulations.

  2. Responsibility for Enforcement Proceeds: The HCEO is responsible for maintaining the proceeds of enforcement in a designated bank account, as set by regulatory conditions, whereas the enforcement agent is not required to do so.

  3. Entitlement to Enforcement Fees: Contrary to the argument that enforcement fees belong to HCEAs, the Court clarified that HCEAs recover fees on behalf of HCEOs. The value of those fees is assumed to be agreed upon contractually between the HCEO and the HCEA.

  4. Liabilities of HCEO and HCEA: Both the HCEO and any HCEAs acting under the HCEO’s authority share joint and several liabilities in relation to duties, powers, and privileges akin to those of a sheriff at common law.

  5. Defendants in Fees Disputes and Damages Claims: The Court concluded that both HCEOs and HCEAs could be proper defendants in disputes concerning enforcement fees and damages claims under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12.

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal reached the following conclusions:

  • The HCEO is responsible for keeping the proceeds of enforcement, has an entitlement to enforcement fees, and can be held liable for the fees and actions of HCEAs.
  • Mr. Bone was entitled to bring his fees dispute against Mr. Williamson. Consequently, Mr. Williamson is liable for Mr. Bone’s costs associated with the initial fees dispute, and Mr. Bone should not have been held liable for costs incurred by Mr. Brown or DCBL.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson clarifies that HCEOs, as principal officers, are ultimately responsible for enforcement actions under writs of control, including the associated fees which are deemed to be the proceeds of the HCEO. The case confirms the joint liability of HCEOs and HCEAs in the execution of their duties and provides a clear legal precedent for the proper defendants in future disputes over enforcement fees. This judgment ensures the protection of debtors and maintains the integrity of the enforcement process, underlining the paramountcy of compliance with statutory responsibilities and procedures.