Tweet
An interesting and somewhat rare case on the use of High Court Enforcement Officers. I should say that the judge appears to be very scathing and critical of DCBL who were the agents used to enforce the debt.
Bailli case link
Civil Litigation Brief commentary on the case
Bailli case link
Civil Litigation Brief commentary on the case
44. It remains to deal with what I have called DCBL's overarching defence. This found its clearest expression in paragraph 29 of the witness statement of Ms Miah dated 10 October 2017. In that paragraph she said as follows:
"DCBL are commanded by the High Court to enforce the High Court writ. As such, all conduct by DCBL was carried out lawfully."
45. Paragraph 32 was along somewhat similar lines:
"If the defendant had dealt with the execution of the writ promptly and payment was forthcoming, there would have been no need for the boat to be seized or removed."
(This indeed comprised the opening part of Mr Shale's cross-examination of Mr Slocombe.)
46. These paragraphs, particularly the first, demonstrated a lamentable misunderstanding of the true legal position. Paragraph 19 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, published by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014, states:
"Enforcement agents must act within the law at all times, including all legislation ..."
47. A Writ of Control is not to be regarded as a kind of blank cheque or a licence to act with impunity. Wisely, neither Mr Shale nor Mr Royle relied upon or referred to this part of their clients' case in their submissions. However, it is astonishing and concerning that their clients, a body and an individual acting under statutory licence, should have done so. Taken together with the multiple breaches of procedure and the absence of proper records that I have referred to, the apparent lack of recognition or insight on the part of the persons concerned, the lackadaisical and dismissive attitude of DCBL to these proceedings and the fact that what oversight the third defendant exercised with respect to DCBL was and is apparently rendered from Florida, there are grounds to consider terminating the third defendant's authorisation to act as an enforcement officer under Regulation 12 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. I will refer the case to the Senior Master for consideration of that course. She may also wish to consider the position of Messrs Short, Star and Wesson.
"DCBL are commanded by the High Court to enforce the High Court writ. As such, all conduct by DCBL was carried out lawfully."
45. Paragraph 32 was along somewhat similar lines:
"If the defendant had dealt with the execution of the writ promptly and payment was forthcoming, there would have been no need for the boat to be seized or removed."
(This indeed comprised the opening part of Mr Shale's cross-examination of Mr Slocombe.)
46. These paragraphs, particularly the first, demonstrated a lamentable misunderstanding of the true legal position. Paragraph 19 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, published by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014, states:
"Enforcement agents must act within the law at all times, including all legislation ..."
47. A Writ of Control is not to be regarded as a kind of blank cheque or a licence to act with impunity. Wisely, neither Mr Shale nor Mr Royle relied upon or referred to this part of their clients' case in their submissions. However, it is astonishing and concerning that their clients, a body and an individual acting under statutory licence, should have done so. Taken together with the multiple breaches of procedure and the absence of proper records that I have referred to, the apparent lack of recognition or insight on the part of the persons concerned, the lackadaisical and dismissive attitude of DCBL to these proceedings and the fact that what oversight the third defendant exercised with respect to DCBL was and is apparently rendered from Florida, there are grounds to consider terminating the third defendant's authorisation to act as an enforcement officer under Regulation 12 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. I will refer the case to the Senior Master for consideration of that course. She may also wish to consider the position of Messrs Short, Star and Wesson.
Comment