Kindly note, all names used in this case study are for illustrative purposes only, they have been changed from those in the real life matter, any similarity to any real world people or businesses is purely coincidental. 

Background
 

In ‘Swift Finance’ v ‘Maple Hospitality’, a notable dispute arose over which creditor had priority to enforce their claim against a debtor's assets. The debtor, Maple Hospitality, owed around £23,000 to Swift Finance and an additional £8,500 to another creditor, Alvini. Both creditors obtained writs of control to enforce their judgments through High Court enforcement, but complications surfaced when the enforcement actions overlapped.
 

Key Events
 

1. Issuance of Writs and First Seizure: Swift Finance instructed Basingstoke Credit to enforce its judgment. Basingstoke received its writ of control on June 12, 2018, and assigned Mr. Fox, an enforcement agent, to seize assets from Maple Hospitality’s premises. The debtor agreed to a controlled goods agreement, wherein they promised to make an initial payment of £10,000, followed by instalments of £1,000 to settle the debt.
    

2. Second Writ and Overlapping Enforcement: Before Maple could make the first payment to Basingstoke Credit, Court Bailiff Services (CBS), representing Alvini, issued a second writ of control on July 16, 2018. CBS, through their agent Mr. Snow, visited Maple Hospitality the day before Basingstoke’s payment was due and demanded immediate full payment of the debt owed to Alvini. Unaware of the controlled goods agreement with Basingstoke, CBS seized £12,050 from Maple.
    

3. Legal Dispute Over Writ Priority: Basingstoke Credit argued that their writ, which had been received and enforced earlier, took priority over CBS’s writ under CPR 83.4, which stipulates that writs must be enforced in the order they are received. CBS contested this, arguing that as High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs), they were not bound by the same procedural rules as ordinary enforcement agents. Basingstoke successfully applied to the court to have the money collected by CBS transferred to them, as they held the earlier writ. CBS challenged this decision, bringing the case to the High Court and later the Court of Appeal, but both courts ruled in favour of Basingstoke Credit.
    

Court Rulings
 

The High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld Basingstoke’s priority claim, citing CPR 83.4, which establishes that writs of control must be enforced in chronological order. The court also emphasised the statutory principle found in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which states that once a writ is issued, it binds the debtor’s goods and prevents subsequent writs from taking precedence until the first is fully satisfied.

 

CBS further argued that the payment collected was not a "proceed" from the seizure of goods, but the courts rejected this, clarifying that any payment made in respect of a controlled goods agreement is treated as proceeds under the enforcement process

Learning Points:
 

1. Priority of Writs: This case reinforces the critical importance of writ priority under CPR 83.4. When multiple creditors issue writs of control, the first writ received takes precedence over subsequent writs. Enforcement agents must respect the priority of earlier writs and should not interfere with existing controlled goods agreements.
    

2. Role of Controlled Goods Agreements: The controlled goods agreement between Maple Hospitality and Basingstoke Credit served as a safeguard for Basingstoke's interest in the debtor’s assets. Such agreements ensure that creditors have a legally binding claim on the assets and protect their priority in situations where multiple creditors are involved.
    

3. Obligations of Enforcement Officers: High Court Enforcement Officers, like any other enforcement agents, must operate within the statutory framework of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This includes adhering to priority rules, ensuring that they do not override earlier writs, and understanding that payments made under controlled goods agreements are considered proceeds.
    

4. Timely Enforcement: This case highlights the importance of prompt action when enforcing a judgment. The timely enforcement of a writ and securing a controlled goods agreement allowed Basingstoke Credit to maintain priority over CBS, underscoring the need for creditors to act quickly to protect their claims.
    

Conclusion
 

The ‘Swift Finance v Maple Hospitality’ case is now a vital precedent in enforcement law, particularly regarding the priority of writs and the proper conduct of enforcement agents. It underscores the need for creditors and enforcement officers to be aware of writ priorities and procedural rules to avoid conflicts and legal challenges in debt recovery efforts.