The court was asked whether it had been correct to refuse relief to the High Court Enforcement Officer in the form of a restraint on an interpleader when this was sought by the applicant.
Held: The test was whether there was evidence entitling the court to conclude that DSI (the company whose premises had been seized) could properly be said, in the light of the limited case law available, to have incurred a ‘real and substantial grievance’. In this case the officers had attended at an address different from that given, and had refused to listen to explanation or to examine documents. The sherriff’s officers had not been made available to the court for examination. The consequences had been costly business interruption leading to the destruction of the contents of a production line. The decision was open to the Master on the evidence.
 EWHC 1270 (QB)
Courts Act 2003 99, Civil Procedure Rules Sch 1, High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Cited – Winter v Bartholomew 24-Jan-1856
A sheriff entered the house of A and seized therein his goods, and also goods belonging to the execution debtor. A. brought an action of trespass against the sheriff, who thereupon obtained an interpleader summons, and the Judge ordered that the . .
Cited – Neumann v Bakeaway Ltd CA 1983
(Note) The court considered when to grant relief to the Sherriff against an interpleader on a compliant by a debtor.
Held: The appropriate test to apply was whether the claimant had suffered a ‘real and substantial grievance’. The court . .
Cited – Smith v Critchfield CA 24-Apr-1885
Protection of Sherriff in Execution Against Goods
The court considered when relief should be granted to the Sherriff issuing executing against a complaint by the debtor. Brett MR said: ‘It seems to me that the sheriff is entitled to protection in respect of the whole of the act which through error . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.416216