The court has a discretion as to whether to order a sale of properties subject to a charging order under the Charging Orders Act 1979 and CPR 73, which requires all the circumstances to be considered.
The High Court considered this issue in Antuzis and others v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 1795 (Ch).
The claimants, former employees of the first defendant, succeeded in claims against the company and its owners and operators, the second and third defendants, for “a gruelling and exploitative work regime”. They secured the judgment debt of more than £1m by charging orders over the second and third defendants’ interests in nine properties in the Maidstone area of Kent. The fourth defendant was joined because of her interest in some of the properties.
The properties comprised: (i) five investment properties inherited and owned equally by the second and fourth defendants; (ii) a property held on trust for the second, third and fourth defendants; and (iii) three properties owned jointly by the second and third defendants, two of which – the family home and an adjacent landlocked property – were worth at least £750,000 with just over £350,000 outstanding on a mortgage. The third property was tenanted; the tenants could not afford to move and the wife was seven weeks pregnant.
The defendants proposed as an alternative to sale to raise mortgage funds to satisfy a large part of the judgment debt. They argued that the second and third defendants suffered from mental health issues and their two adult children would be made homeless if a sale of the family home was ordered.
The only possible prospect of the claimants being repaid was if the value in the properties was realised. The alternative proposals were insufficiently precisely formulated to enable the court to conclude that they were workable. The fourth defendant – who could herself seek a sale of the investment properties under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 – did not want a sale postponed.
The court ordered the sale of the five investment properties and enabled the fourth defendant to buy out the interests of the second and third defendants in the trust property. The tenanted property was to be sold subject to the tenancy, to safeguard the tenants’ position, with a right for the claimants to seek a variation after April 2025 if it remained unsold. The family home and adjoining land were also to be sold but the date for giving up possession would be postponed for four months to allow time for alternative arrangements to be made.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
