Enforcement of Judgements: Orders for Sale Jonathan Owen

2/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

Introduction

1. The Practice Direction to Part 70 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (hereafter “the CPR”) sets out the

methods of enforcing money judgements. One of those is the grant of a charging order over a judgement

debtor’s interest in land in accordance with Part 73 of the CPR. Such a charge will secure a judgement

creditor’s interest to the extent of the equity already existing in the judgement debtor’s interest. The

judgement creditor will, however, often want not simply a security interest in land, but rather money in the

bank. The question then arises as to whether or not the charging order can be enforced by an order for

sale of the land to which the charging order relates, such that the judgement debt can be extracted from

the proceeds of sale and be paid directly to the judgement creditor.

2. This article seeks to address the basic principles relating to the grant or refusal of an order for sale

and some practical questions relating to such applications.

CPR Rule 73.10 and the general discretion

3. Rule 73.10 (1) provides that “subject to the provisions of any enactment, the court may, upon a claim by a

person who has obtained a charging order over an interest in property, order the sale of the property to enforce

the charging order” (emphasis added).

4. It is clear from the “may” that the court has a discretion. The rule itself gives no clue as to how that

discretion is to be exercised. The same is true of the practice direction to CPR Part 73, save to the extent

that paragraph 4.3 sets out the information which must be evidenced in an application for an order for

sale which suggests that the court is, at least, likely to have regard, amongst other matters, to the extent of

any prior charges over the property, the amounts due to the judgement creditor, the judgement debtor’s

interest in the property, the value of the property, and the details of the persons in possession of the

property.

3/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

5. Although it is a matter of discretion for the court, as a matter of principle, it appears likely that the

court will have regard to the following matters:-

a. Whether the judgement creditor is likely to get his money otherwise. Although an order for

sale is a severe step, potentially depriving a person of his home, “the policy of the law [is] that a

creditor is entitled to be paid and to be paid in due time”. See e.g. Pickering v. Wells [2002] 2 FLR

798 (hereafter “Pickering”). Accordingly, the court is likely to wish to know about:-

I. How long the debt has been outstanding.

II. What other attempts have been made enforcement, and what other means of enforcement

may be open to the judgment creditor.

III. The debtor’s engagement with the process: is this a case of “cannot pay all in one go, but is

doing his best”, or rather “may or may not be able to pay, but in any event shows no credible

intention of paying now or in the future”? What, if any, proposals for payment have been made,

and what payments of actually been made to reduce the debt?

b. What practical benefit will an order for sale bring:-

I. How much equity is in the premises?

II. What proportion does that equity bear to the amount of outstanding debt?

c. The interests of any other creditors: have such creditors expressed a view, and if so what view,

and for what reasons?

4/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

d. Special statutory considerations under sections 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and

Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (hereafter “TOLATA”): please see below.

e. Human rights considerations: please see below.

Statutory considerations under Sections 14 and 15 of TOLATA

6. First, these considerations do not strictly apply to the case of a property which is solely owned by the

judgement debtor: please see Pickering. However, in any case in which a property is jointly owned by the

judgement debtor and another, sections 14 and 15 of TOLATA are engaged. The matters to which the

Court is to have regard are to include:-

a. The intentions of the person or persons (if any) who created the trust (under which the

property is held),

b. The purposes for which the property subject to the trust is held,

c. The welfare of any minor who occupies or might reasonably be expected to occupy any land

subject to the trust as his home, and

d. The interests of any secured creditor of any beneficiary.

7. From this, it is clear that the interests of the judgement creditor are only one matter to be considered.

Further, even though sections 14 and 15 of TOLATA do not strictly apply in a case in which the property is

solely owned by the judgement debtor, one would expect the court to have regard to similar factors as

part of its general discretion, and in particular, insofar as it is a factor, “the welfare of any minor who

occupies or might reasonably be expected to occupy any land subject to [the charging order] as his home”.

5/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

Human rights

8. The Article 8 right is as follows, and, importantly, contains specific reference to a person’s home:-

“Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his

correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such

as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of

disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others” (emphasis added).

9. The effect of the Article 8 right has been considered in the context of charging order enforcement.

See Arnold J in National Westminster Bank PLC v. Rushmer and Rushmer [2010] EWHC 554 (Ch) at

paragraph 50:-

“I agree … that the power to enforce a charging order under section 14 of TOLATA is compatible

with the Convention. I also agree … that the court’s discretion under section 15 has to be

exercised compatibly with the Convention rights of those affected by an order for enforcement.

In my judgment, it will ordinarily be sufficient for this purpose for the court to give due

consideration to the factors specified in section 15 of TOLATA. That will ordinarily enable the

court to balance the creditor’s rights, which include its rights under Article 1 of the First

Protocol, with the Article 8 rights of those affected by an order for sale. I would not rule out the

possibility that there may be circumstances in which it is necessary for the court explicitly to

consider whether an order for sale is a proportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of

those affected, but I do not consider that this will always be necessary”.

6/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

10. Although that authority only refers to the joint ownership scenario where sections 14 and 15 of

TOLATA apply, the article 8 right is logically of no less importance in a joint ownership case. Without the

checks and balances of the TOLATA framework, it is probably all the more important expressly to check

that any interference with the article 8 right is proportionate.

11. The article 8 right accordingly provides a potentially important argument to a judgement debtor.

Caution when considering the merits of such an argument is, however, to be advised. The case law to date,

as appears from the above, is not suggestive that this argument in itself is likely to be enough to save the

judgement debtor if the other important factors go against him. The human rights argument is therefore

probably best to be deployed as an argument amongst several, rather than as a sole line of defence.

Practical considerations

Jurisdiction

12. Under CPR rule 73.10 (2) a claim for an order for sale should be made to the court which made the

charging order, unless that court does not have jurisdiction to make an order for sale. A county court has

jurisdiction where the amount owing does not exceed the County Court limit of £30,000. If the matter is

one which has to be started in the High Court that it should be started at the Chancery Chambers in the

Royal Courts of Justice or at a Chancery District Registry: please see paragraph 4.2 of the practice direction

to CPR part 73.

Matters which the application must address

13. Paragraph 4.3 of the practice direction to CPR part 73 importantly identifies the various matters which

the written evidence in support of the claim must address. Importantly, pursuant to paragraph 4.4 “the

claimant must take all reasonable steps to obtain the information required”. A copy of the charging order

must be filed with the claim form.

7/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

Part 8 procedure

14. Expressly pursuant to CPR rule 73.10 (3) the claimant must use the CPR part 8 procedure.

Form of order

15. As noted in paragraph 4.4 of the practice direction to CPR Part 73 sample forms of order for sale are

set out at Appendix A to the practice direction. “These are not prescribed forms of order and they may be

adapted or varied by the court to meet the requirements of individual cases”. There are separate sample forms

for properties solely owned by the judgement debtor and properties owned by the judgement debtor and

another person. Important questions which both sides will need to consider regarding the proper form of

order if any order for sale is made are as follows:-

a. Should the order be suspended for a certain period of time to allow the debtor to pay?

b. Who should have conduct of the sale? Presumably this will often be the judgement creditor in

circumstances in which matters have gone on long enough for an order for sale to be granted.

c. Does the judgement debtor need to give possession in order for the sale effectively to take

place, and if so by when?

d. Should the court fix a minimum price for the sale (unless varied by agreement between the

parties or further order of the court)?

e. What should be done with the proceeds of sale? First, the costs and expenses of effecting the

sale will need to be discharged. Secondly, the monies will have to be used to discharge any

charges or other securities over the property which have priority over the charging order.

8/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

Thirdly, the judgement creditor is paid. Finally, the balance is to be paid to the judgement

debtor.

Conclusions

16. The making of orders for sale is a discretionary matter in which there is a premium on each side

being reasonable and proportionate in its approach. Each side will have, if it wishes to maximise the

chances of success, to prepare its evidence fully and carefully to ensure that all matters touching upon the

discretion are properly addressed. If an order for sale is to be made careful attention needs to be given to

the form of order. There is a loss at stake for either side and these claims merit careful attention.

Jonathan Owen

January 2013

Jonathan Owen

Jonathan Owen was called to the Bar in 2004.

He is a specialist in personal injury, clinical negligence, disease, fraudulent claims, regulatory, costs,

business and property, employment, planning and environmental and local government claims and

professional discipline and regulation matters.

jonathanowen@ropewalk.co.uk

9/9

Business & Property Special Interest Group

Disclaimer:

The information and any commentary on the law contained in this presentation is provided free of charge for information purposes only.

The opinions expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the view of Ropewalk Chambers as a whole. Every

reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and

correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by the writer nor by Ropewalk Chambers. The information and commentary

does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are advised to obtain specific,

personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comment contained within this Article.