Previous Cases

12 September 2018. My client, a heating engineer, successfully reclaimed ownership of his Volvo car subsequent to a bailiff firm impounding and subsequently selling it at auction to settle a debt owed by the previous owner. The bailiff company acknowledged utilizing an ANPR camera (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) to locate the vehicle, a method deemed beyond the confines of enforcement regulations. This instance prompted the establishment of a regulation requiring Enforcement Agents to conduct thorough inquiries to confirm ownership of goods before initiating seizure proceedings.

21 November 2018. My client, a company director, purchased a pre-owned Porsche Cayenne from an authorised Porsche dealer. Shortly thereafter, the vehicle was stolen, prompting her to report the incident to the police. Subsequently, it came to light that enforcement agents had seized the car on behalf of a London council to settle an outstanding traffic violation debt. The warrant of control listed the previous owner's details, leading my client to submit a third-party claim for controlled goods. Despite her claim, the enforcement agent rejected it, prompting her to pursue legal recourse. The court ruled in her favour, granting her claim along with costs and summary damages. Upon visiting the vehicle compound in southeast London, my client discovered a disorganised scrapyard filled with vehicles in various states of disrepair. When attempting to start the car, she noticed numerous warning lights and engine irregularities. Seeking assistance, she arranged for the Porsche dealer to transport the car for inspection. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the engine had been replaced with one from another vehicle. Despite reporting the incident to the police, no investigation was conducted due to resource constraints. Consequently, I recommended my client to engage a private investigator. The investigator's findings revealed a troubling connection: the enforcement agent who seized the car was the brother of the scrapyard owner in southeast London. Furthermore, they were implicated in a scheme involving the theft and export of cars for use as taxis. In a commendable display of goodwill, the Porsche dealership replaced my client's vehicle. Furthermore, they used their legal representation to pursue damages from the London council that had instructed the enforcement agent.

14 January 2019.My client faced legal action after her dog attacked and injured a bailiff. However, I successfully had the claim dismissed on the grounds that the dog did not belong to a breed prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act, and the incident occurred within the confines of my client's own backyard. Furthermore, it was revealed that the bailiff had unlawfully trespassed onto a neighbour's property and scaled a fence to access the rear of my client's premises.

15 March 2019. My client, an accountant, was awarded £51,000 in compensation from Channel 5 after being filmed without consent during the production of a documentary showcasing High Court Enforcement agents in action. Channel 5 subsequently aired the footage as part of their television series titled Can't Pay We'll Take It Away.

19 January 2020. My client, a vehicle rental firm, obtained compensation covering the replacement expenses of a rental car and the loss of rental revenue. This was following an incident where bailiffs removed the vehicle while it was being rented out to a customer and subsequently auctioned it off. Prior to the auction, the car was involved in a road collision. Like numerous rental vehicles, it was owned by a third-party leasing company. The leasing company acquired the address of the new owner from the DVLA and retrieved the vehicle parked outside their residence. However, it had undergone a flawed Category C repair, rendering it valueless.

15 February 2020. My client, a doctor, received a notice indicating she was facing prosecution for a speeding violation. Remarkably, the alleged offence occurred shortly after a bailiff had towed her car away due to an unrelated traffic debt. My client petitioned the court for the vehicle's return, citing a 'defective' warrant of control that failed to list her current address. Upon reviewing the evidence, including photographs from the speed camera, it was revealed that an unidentified man was driving the vehicle with a woman seated in the front passenger seat. Subsequent investigations uncovered that the man behind the wheel was the enforcement agent, while the woman was his girlfriend. Shockingly, the bailiff had been using my client's car for personal purposes. Despite reporting the incident to the police, they deemed it a civil matter. Further inquiries disclosed that the enforcement agent had enlisted the assistance of a friend employed at a car dealership to acquire keys and an immobiliser for the vehicle. Ultimately, my client successfully reclaimed her vehicle and was awarded damages totalling £13,266, along with additional compensation for the expenses incurred in changing the keys and immobiliser. Additionally, the Court overturned her speeding conviction under Section 14 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, citing the outdated address on the summons.

20 March 2020. The bailiff company DCBL was ordered to pay more than £4000 in compensation, along with associated expenses, after dispatching an Enforcement Agent to enforce a writ of control despite the court ordering the suspension of enforcement activities.

11 May 2020. The police arested my client, who was unemployed, on suspicion of tampering with controlled goods. A lone bailiff had applied a wheel clamp to his vehicle, which my client subsequently removed. However, I successfully had the charges dropped after presenting evidence demonstrating that the bailiff lacked the authority to take control of the vehicle, as it was not owned by my client. Following this incident, the police complaints authority informed me that they had referred the arresting officer for retraining on how to handle encounters with enforcement agents and enforcement regulations. Specifically, when police officers attend scenes involving bailiffs, they are required to verify the enforcement agent's identity and authority to be on the premises. If the agent's authority is questionable, the police officer must relocate the agent to the curtilage of the property until their identity and authority have been verified.

16 May 2020.A single mother, my client, obtained compensation following an incident where a bailiff gained entry to her residence using the foot-in-door technique. Upon entering, the bailiff summoned the police and, in their presence, conducted a thorough search of her home. She filed a claim against the council, on whose behalf the bailiff was acting, and was awarded damages due to inaccuracies on the liability order, which listed her previous address. The legal action against the police is still in progress, as both officers involved are accused of negligence for failing to verify the bailiff's authority to be on the property.

19 August 2020. A hair salon proprietor, my client, successfully obtained compensation following an incident where a bailiff forcibly entered her establishment during the early morning hours to collect an outstanding water bill owed by the former tenant. Surveillance footage from an in-store CCTV camera, strategically placed above the cash register, captured the bailiff illicitly pocketing £700 in cash.

1 September 2020. A London Metropolitan Police officer faced disciplinary action after being recorded by a 'RING' doorbell camera conducting Police National Computer (PNC) vehicle checks for an enforcement agent outside my client's residence. The enforcement agent sought information regarding any vehicles parked on the street that might belong to my client.

11 November 2020. A car rental company based in London successfully pursued legal action for damages exceeding £10,000 after one of their rental vehicles, a Tesla Model 3, was towed away due to an unpaid traffic contravention debt while it was being rented to a customer. Upon discovering the situation, the client obtained an injunction compelling the bailiffs to return the car. However, upon its return, it was observed that the vehicle had sustained damage during its time at the vehicle pound. The damage occurred when the car was moved within the pound using a forklift, causing harm to its underfloor lithium battery pack valued at £10,000. Initially, the bailiffs denied any wrongdoing, unaware that the Tesla Model 3 is equipped with video capabilities that allow it to live-stream its surroundings. The live-streamed footage from the vehicle while it was in the pound clearly showed the forklift operator moving the car by lifting its rear end, resulting in damage to the underbody and the expensive lithium battery pack.

15 November 2020. A single mother, my client, found herself confronted by bailiffs and police outside her residence, aiming to collect an outstanding court fine. Fearful for her safety and that of her infant children indoors, she hesitated to open the front door. A police officer then issued a threat, stating that unless she complied and opened the door, she would be restrained with handcuffs. Feeling coerced, my client reluctantly opened the door, prompting a swift entry by both police and bailiffs into her home. Given her status as a beneficiary of single-parent benefits, my client fell into the category of vulnerable debtors under enforcement regulations. Initially seeking guidance from Citizens Advice, she was advised to file a complaint against the police. However, the officer in question denied issuing the threat of handcuffing and was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. Upon consulting me, my client disclosed the existence of a RING doorbell camera, which had recorded the police officer making the threatening statement. I then directed her to a specialised solicitor experienced in litigating cases involving police misconduct and initiated a private prosecution. Subsequently, the prosecution was dropped, with my client receiving unspecified damages, believed to amount to four figures.

9 December 2020. A medical practice owned by a doctor filed a claim seeking £41,000 in damages following mishandling of a medical laser by bailiffs, who removed and haphazardly loaded it into a van. Although the bailiff's insurance company disputed the claim, records from the medical practice indicated that the laser was fully functional. CCTV footage revealed that the bailiffs had caused damage to the laser due to their improper handling procedures during its removal.

11 February 2020. An elderly woman in her eighties, my client, was accosted by a trio of enforcement agents, all clad in combat attire and body armour, while they were executing a writ of control against her son, who resided in Barcelona. The agents subjected the elderly lady to harassment and disruption, rummaging through her cottage and removing furniture to the front garden. Despite the presence of the police, who asserted their role was solely to "prevent a breach of the peace," my client felt compelled to pay the enforcement agents using her credit card to compel them to leave. Distressed by the ordeal, my client reached out to me, prompting me to swiftly apply for a halt on the funds taken and initiate a claim for damages. The damages sought encompassed the expenses incurred in engaging emergency personnel to reposition and return the heavy furniture to its original location, as well as the reconnection of the TV set-top box and internet router, along with the restoration of the property. Additionally, the enforcement agent had absconded with a set of keys from the premises. Ultimately, my client agreed to a settlement amounting to £5,600 with the creditor identified in the writ of control, covering the expenses associated with changing the locks and the disruption caused to the property. Furthermore, my client's bank refunded the funds taken by the bailiffs back to her credit card.

2 April 2020. A railway worker, my client, purchased a BMW 3 series via eBay and subsequently obtained damages amounting to £19,515.27. This followed an incident where a lone bailiff, using an ANPR camera, took control of his vehicle and sold it at auction to settle a traffic contravention debt. Upon examining the details of the warrant of control, it was revealed that the debtor named was the previous owner of the vehicle. In response, I pursued the vehicle's new owners to acquire the sales invoice and evidence of the price paid. Additionally, my client obtained a statement of account from the bailiff company, which disclosed the auction price declared by the enforcement agent. It became apparent that this declared price did not align with the amount paid by the new owner on eBay. Further investigation revealed that the proprietor of the enforcement agent's vehicle compound had sold the car on eBay using his personal account. Despite reporting the matter to the police, they deemed it a civil matter. Consequently, my client initiated legal action against the creditor identified in the warrant of control, a London council. As a result, he successfully recovered damages covering the replacement cost of the vehicle, along with summary damages for each day he was deprived of its use, in addition to costs incurred.

21 May 2020. My client was awarded damages totalling £3,711.15, and the writ of control was set aside. In the course of pursuing a judgment debt exceeding £7,000, a High Court Enforcement agent attended without issuing the required statutory notice. Subsequently, the agent demanded a sum in excess of £12,000, inclusive of his charges. Consequently, my client applied for a detailed assessment of the enforcement agent's charges. Following the evaluation, the High Court master determined that the agent had exceeded the statutory maximum charges permissible. Consequently, my client opted not to settle the debt due to the failed enforcement action, rendering the case financially unsustainable for the bailiff.

30 June 2020. A bailiff attended on my client regarding an outstanding traffic contravention debt, demanding a money transfer and threatening to clamp her vehicle. At first, everything seemed above board in the enforcement process. However, my client provided CCTV evidence showing the bailiff cruising around in a fancy Mercedes-Benz, which raised eyebrows considering bailiffs typically come from lower-income backgrounds and driving such a luxury car is incongruopus amoung enforcement workers. Upon digging deeper, I got the previous ownership details revealing how the bailiff's came into possession of the luxury car. I then reached out to the previous owner, who claimed the vehicle had been reported stolen, although police disputed this. It turned out the bailiff had seized and sold the car at auction, with the buyer being none other than the bailiff himself. In response, I initiated a detailed assessment hearing under CPR 84.16 to determine the auction details and proceeds distribution. The court ruled that the auction was a sham, finding the bailiff had unlawfully taken possession of the Mercedes-Benz. Consequently, the vehicle was rightfully reclaimed.

11 August 2020. My client had just settled into a new rented property when a bailiff, acting on a High Court order in the name of the former tenant, forcefully demanded entry. Despite my client's objections, the bailiff attempted to force their way in, leading to a scuffle. When the police arrived, my client caught the bailiff looking at the council tax bill for single occupancy and then tossing the document aside. This bill clearly showed my client as the sole resident. Despite my client's pleas for the bailiff to leave peacefully, the bailiff refused. The police, seeing it as a civil matter, didn't step in. So, I directed my client to a specialist solicitor in police misconduct and began legal proceedings. In court, it was shown that by disregarding the single-occupancy council tax bill, the bailiff had strayed from the 'reasonable belief' that the goods belonged to the debtor. This case, dubbed Tunstall v DCBL, set a precedent, stating that when faced with proof that the debtor doesn't live at the address in question, bailiffs must leave promptly with all due reasonable speed. Moreover, the police are obliged to swiftly escort the bailiff away from the property.

16 July 2021. A lone enforcement agent, acting on execution of a writ of control for an outstanding water bill owed by the previous tenant, attended my client's premises, a restaurant in East London. The agent called the police after causing disturbance among the restaurant's customers. While present, the agent deactivated his body-worn camera, proceeded behind the bar, and unlawfully appropriated a sum of cash from the cash register. A CCTV camera positioned directly above the till captured the bailiff in the act of pilfering cash and card receipts, stashing them away in his pockets. The head waiter promptly reported the theft to the police, who deemed it a 'civil matter'. An enquiry by the police complaints authority is underway to investigate the conduct of the officers involved. Should the complaint be dismissed, my client intends to pursue a private prosecution against the officer under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Additionally, my client has initiated legal action against the creditor stated on the writ of control to recover the appropriated funds and to seek compensation for a day's worth of lost business earnings, totalling £4760.00 in restaurant and bar sales.

21 July 2021. My client, a manager of a London supermarket, purchased an exceptionally rare classic sports car from a private seller. Several weeks later, an enforcement agent, using an ANPR camera, towed the car from my client's driveway, from which his address was not listed on the warrant of control in an effort to recover an outstanding Congestion Charge owed by the original seller. Upon seeking my assistance, I aided my client in lodging a third-party claim to the controlled goods. Regrettably, the enforcement agent's office rejected the claim, prompting my client to apply to the court, which granted her the right to claim and awarded damages and costs. However, by that time, the bailiff company had already disposed of the vehicle. My client observed that the car's tracking device indicated its presence at a commercial site in Kent via Google Maps, despite still being registered under her name. Despite my client's report to the police, they declined involvement in what they deemed a civil matter and opted for no further action. Consequently, I referred my client to a London-based private investigator, whose findings revealed the car's location within a steel shipping container at the commercial premises, evidently to mask its transponder signal. Upon the police's intervention and opening the container, the car was discovered inside prepared for export. It was uncovered that the enforcement agent had conducted online searches using his mobile phone to ascertain the car's background. Subsequently, my client pursued legal action against the creditor identified on the warrant of control. Ultimately, my client withdrew the claim upon receiving compensation for damages, the return of her car, and reimbursement for the costs incurred from the private investigation. It later emerged that the vehicle was not actually being driven within the Congestion Charge zone; rather, it was being transported on a trailer to a specialised vehicle storage facility, albeit with an uncovered back number plate due to an oversight by the transport company.

17 September 2021. My client, a former company director, successfully reclaimed £51,000 following an incident where bailiffs unlawfully entered her home while she was away. Acting on a debt supposedly owed by her former company, which had never conducted business from her residential address, a lone enforcement agent, a former Romanian police officer, entered into her home. Despite her lack of liability for the debt, the bailiff proceeded to pilfer jewellery, car keys, her passport, and a sum of cash from various rooms. Upon returning home and discovering the bailiff upstairs, the homeowner attempted to contact the police, only to have the phone knocked out of her hand by the bailiff, who then used his own phone to call trhe police on 999 and falsely report being assaulted. Subsequent police intervention resulted in the bailiff being permitted to depart, leaving the homeowner to uncover the burglary that had taken place. CCTV footage from the upper landing revealed the bailiff pocketing items, yet police failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the crime. Weeks later, their Range Rover was stolen from outside the property without evidence of forced entry. With the police deeming the incident a civil matter and opting for no further action, the client was unable to make an insurance claim. Consequently, negotiations are underway with the police force regarding a claim for negligence and offences under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The negligence allegation is grounded in the failure of police officers to verify the bailiff's identity and his legal right to enter the property.

24 October 2021. My client successfully obtained a stay on the writ of control and had the judgment set aside, along with being awarded £3700 in summary costs. While the adjudicated amount stood at £4348.18, the enforcement agent insisted on £5916.49, incorporating his fees and charges. However, during the detailed assessment hearing, it was determined that the enforcement agent's fees and charges surpassed the prescribed maximum. Consequently, the judgment claimant was instructed to cover my client's costs.

29 October 2021. A housewife, my client, was unexpectedly confronted by a lone bailiff demanding payment of £5,766 for a judgment debt amounting to £3,219 owed by a former tenant The bailiff, attired in police-like combat gear and body armour, adamantly refused to leave the premises and remained there for a duration of four hours. Despite my client's requests, the bailiff declined to present the writ of control indicating the enforcement address. In response, my client provided evidence demonstrating that the debtor did not reside at the property and even supplied his current address. However, the bailiff persisted in harassing my client, intruding upon her personal belongings until she felt compelled to transfer £5,766 via an online bank transaction. Fortunately, my client managed to recover the wrongfully taken funds by contacting her bank. Subsequently, the debtor named in the writ sought my assistance and applied for a detailed assessment of the bailiff's fees and charges. This assessment was granted as the bailiff had failed to adhere to the enforcement provisions, rendering him ineligible to recover any fees. As a result, my client, the debtor, was awarded costs amounting to £4,211. Furthermore, my client, the housewife, was granted £957 in addition to costs due to the bailiff's intrusion onto the property without a writ of control specifying her address. This award encompasses £500 for the initial hour the bailiff spent on the property, followed by £100 for each subsequent hour, along with £157 for damages incurred from the interference with her furniture.

4 November 2021. My client, a plumber, was successfully awarded over £9,000 in compensation after bailiffs towed away his van while he was engaged in a job. The van, belonging to my client, qualified as exempt goods since its auction value fell below the £1,350 statutory threshold for exemption. However, the bailiff company's solicitor disputed this, contending that enforcement agents have the discretion to determine valuations independently. The court ruled in favour of my client, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the enforcement agent's valuation compared to the substantial evidence provided by my client indicating the true auction value of the van. As a result, my client was awarded damages equivalent to 90 days' worth of lost earnings, reflecting the period during which the enforcement action deprived him of the use of his van for his business activities.

28 November 2021. My client, a midwife, secured damages amounting to £5,410.11 (inclusive of costs) and obtained an injunction against the bailiff to have a wheel clamp removed from her car. Additionally, the bailiff was directed to remove a sticky notice affixed to the car window with non-removable adhesive. Although the vehicle was under hire-purchase, my client had captured on her phone camera the bailiff's statement asserting his authority to clamp hire-purchase cars but not to remove them due to the hirer's 'beneficial interest' in the vehicle.

16 December 2021. My client, a London black cab driver, successfully obtained damages amounting to £21,455 after bailiffs clamped his leased black cab taxi while it was in operation on a designated taxi rank. Subsequently, the bailiff called the police on 999, who forcibly removed the taxi driver from the cab and forcefully restrained him on the ground. Another black cab taxi driver, who submitted recordings of the event, documented the incident. The claims for police brutality, false arrest, and unlawful arrest are ongoing. In the event that the police force declines to address the complaint, my client intends to pursue a private prosecution against the officers for offences under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

15 February 2022. Bailiffs visited my client, a boutique hotel in central London, to collect a debt owed by the hotel's former proprietor. However, the writ of control used was defective, as it specified a different enforcement address. Despite this discrepancy, the police officers on the scene failed to notice the error and permitted the bailiffs to take £21,731.42 under the threat of forcibly entering the hotel's bedrooms and causing disruption to guests. My client has submitted an application to the court for the return of the money taken, and a hearing is pending to determine the client's costs in this matter.

4 March 2022. My client, a fast-food delivery driver, successfully obtained damages amounting to £6901 plus costs when a bailiff company clamped and towed his delivery van while he was actively making deliveries. An injunction was granted because the van was in service as a fast-food delivery vehicle at the time the bailiff took control of it. Furthermore, my client's van displayed fresh damage to its underbody, which was absent prior to the bailiff removing it. This damage was consistent with the use of a forklift to maneuver the van by lifting its rear wheels off the ground within the vehicle compound. Despite the bailiff company's assertion that the enforcement agent was equipped with a body-worn camera during the van's removal, they refused to provide the recordings of the event. Consequently, the court dismissed their defence.

22 March 2022. On appeal, my client secured £13,727 in damages and costs after a bystander captured footage of a police officer deploying his telescopic baton to shatter the passenger window of my client's car and forcibly removing him from the vehicle. Subsequently, three additional police officers restrained my client on the ground. Initially, my client faced charges of obstructing an enforcement agent, as per paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. However, my client was acquitted due to several factors: the enforcement agent possessed a warrant with my client's previous address (a defective instrument under CPR 75.7(7)), and the vehicle in question was under hire-purchase, rendering it ineligible for enforcement action according to Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12. Consequently, the police force covered the costs of repairing my client's vehicle and providing an interim rental vehicle. While my client's initial claim was dismissed by a deputy district judge, it was subsequently appealed to a circuit judge on grounds of impartiality and bias towards the perceived debtor, which contravenes R v Purdy. Additionally, the solicitor representing the police force contests my consultation fee. Currently, legal representatives are engaged in ongoing negotiations to reach a reasonable and equitable settlement.

24 May 2022. Victory for vulnerable debtors! On the 4th of November 2021, bailiffs removed my client's Audi A5, despite his vulnerable status due to anxiety. The bailiff, acting on a High Court writ amounting to £8575.65, was presented with medical evidence attesting to the debtor's condition. However, the enforcement proceeded regardless. Pursuant to CPR 84.16, my client sought a detailed assessment for the breach of Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. The High Court ruled that the bailiff had failed to afford the debtor sufficient time to seek advice once the enforcement powers were invoked. Consequently, all fees and charges imposed by the bailiff were disallowed.

11 January 2023. My client, a drive-through car wash, reached out to me after an incident involving a man on a motorcycle who arrived and harassed staff, demanding entry into the office. The cashier promptly contacted the police, leading to a prolonged standoff as the man claimed to be an enforcement agent. Seeking redress for loss of business, my client engaged my services. Upon investigation, CCTV footage revealed the man rummaging through a trash bin and pocketing a small device, later identified as an Apple AirTag. It had inadvertently fallen from behind the back number plate of a customer's car during the jet wash. Further inquiry uncovered that the customer was a debtor being tracked by bailiffs, who employed as their modus operandi, attaching AirTags to debtors vehicles. Upon contacting the customer, I learned that High Court bailiffs had recently subjected her to an ambush enforcement, searching her home for a debt owed by a company of which she was a director. Engaging my services, the enforcement actions were halted. Despite reporting the offence of monitoring a person using an electronic tracking device to the police, they dismissed it as a civil matter. Consequently, I traced the home addresses of the two police officers involved and initiated legal action against them and the car wash business for professional incompetence and abuse of public office. Subsequently, their police force intervened, and a settlement was reached out of court.

May 2022. My client, a property landlord, approached me for assistance following a visit by bailiffs to his residential address concerning a council tax liability order relating to a rental property under his ownership, which was vacant at the time. The bailiffs had erroneously affixed the notice to the address of the rental property rather than presenting it at the location they visited. When my client requested the bailiffs to provide proof of their authority to enter the premises, specifically the Liability Order, they refused. Consequently, my client initiated legal proceedings for the breach of Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which stipulates that bailiffs must furnish evidence of their authority upon request by the debtor. Additionally, the bailiffs had acted under a liability order deemed 'defective' as it specified an incorrect address, contravening Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. On 20 of September 2023, Judge Harrison, presiding at the High Court, ruled in favour of my client, ordering the bailiff company Bristow and Sutor to pay £10,700, inclusive of costs.

11 January 2024. In 2019, a debtor facing a writ of just under £24,000 sought my assistance due to allegations of overcharging by the High Court Enforcement Agent (HCEA), Gary Brown. As a result, my client applied for a stay of enforcement and an assessment of Mr Brown's fees. Master Davison at the High Court granted a stay of execution (stay order) and ordered an assessment of Mr Brown's fees. However, in violation of Master Davison's stay order, Mr Brown appeared as an enforcement agent at my client's residence. Subsequently, Master Lisa Sullivan presided over the fee assessment and granted an application by the High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO), Simon Williamson, to include Mr Brown as a co-defendant. Master Sullivan then dismissed my client's fee application and claim for damages for Mr Brown's breach of the stay order. In her judgment, Lisa Sullivan stated that the HCEO was the incorrect defendant and directed my client to bear all the legal costs of the HCEO and Mr Brown. I referred my client to a specialist solicitor to challenge Master Sullivan's order, as it contradicted legislation stating that HCEOs are personally accountable for the actions of their agents acting under their authority. My client should not be responsible for Mr Brown's costs after being added as a defendant at the behest of Mr Williamson. The Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Williamson, as the HCEO, is accountable for his agents, and my client was justified in not pursuing the dispute against Mr Brown as an HCEA. Additionally, the court overturned Master Sullivan's cost order against my client and directed Mr Williamson to cover my client's costs. Three High Court Judges sitting at the Court of Appeal unanimously concluded that Master Sullivan had difficulty in understanding how Mr Brown could act as an agent for Mr Williamson, and my client appropriately addressed the dispute solely against Mr Williamson. Consequently, the Court of Appeal awarded my client's costs against Mr Williamson.