Background
County Court property litigation between Mark John Mayo and the defendants produced three costs orders requiring the first defendant, Elizabeth Anne Stanbrook Evans, to pay a total of £5,498.80. The orders had not been paid. Evans challenged their validity and sought to appeal certain underlying rulings, but a Deputy High Court Judge had previously refused to stay one of the costs orders.
At Mayo’s request, a County Court officer signed an N293A certificate for enforcement in the High Court. A district registry seal was then placed on the certificate, apparently by the Barnstaple District Registry, but the writ of control was issued from the Central Office in London. Evans applied to have the writ set aside or stayed.
The Court’s Holding
Master Dagnall held that the County Court officer was entitled under the Civil Procedure Rules to sign the enforcement certificate. The costs orders remained binding unless set aside or varied by the court that made them or on appeal; the Master was not the appeal court and would not treat them as nullities.
The Court nevertheless found a procedural error because the enforcement proceedings were being handled through a district registry, apparently Barnstaple, while the writ had been issued from the Central Office. Given the parties’ and proceedings’ connections to Devon, enforcement through London was also potentially inconvenient and inconsistent with the overriding objective.
Applying CPR 3.10, the Court declined to set aside the writ merely because of that procedural error. Instead, it transferred the writ and Evans’s application to the Bristol District Registry, directed that further applications concerning the writ be made there, and stayed execution for 28 days, with permission to apply in Bristol for an extension or other relief.
Key Takeaways
- A County Court judgment or costs order must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside or varied; an appeal does not automatically stay enforcement.
- A procedural error in issuing a writ from the wrong High Court office does not necessarily invalidate the writ because CPR 3.10 permits the court to remedy such errors.
- Enforcement-related applications should be made to the court or hearing centre dealing with enforcement, and convenience, access to the underlying file, and proportionality may support transfer to a district registry.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between challenging an underlying judgment and challenging the procedure used to enforce it. An enforcement court will not ordinarily revisit the merits of binding costs orders, but it can correct defects in the location and administration of enforcement.
It also shows the practical flexibility available under CPR 3.10: rather than impose the expense and delay of cancelling and reissuing a writ, the Court preserved it, transferred the matter to the more appropriate registry, and allowed a short period for the judgment debtor to seek further relief.