Background
The claimant obtained a California judgment against the defendant. In English enforcement proceedings, default judgment was entered in August 2025 for US$14,913,777.61 plus £10,140 in costs. The defendant had unsuccessfully sought to appeal the US judgment, but did not apply to set aside the English default judgment.
Following earlier freezing and receivership orders, the defendant was found in contempt for failing to comply with asset-disclosure requirements. He was ordered to pay £80,000 in costs. The claimant then sought a charging order over the defendant’s interests in 4 Wilton Place, London, to secure the judgment debt, and a third-party debt order over his Revolut account to enforce the £80,000 costs award.
The Court’s Holding
Senior Master Cook made a final charging order over the defendant’s beneficial interests in the London property. The court had jurisdiction because those were interests in land, and none of the defendant’s objections justified withholding the order. The asserted prior equitable charges of Dorsey & Whitney Trust Company LLC did not prevent the order: priority was not to be determined on this application, and the trustee did not oppose a final charging order.
The court rejected the defendant’s unsupported assertion that the property was his only home, noting that he had referred to residence in Antigua and Barbuda and had failed to provide ordered asset disclosure. In any event, housing and disability considerations could be addressed on a later application for sale. The court also made a final third-party debt order over £54,691.27 held by Revolut Ltd for the defendant, finding the debt and its English situs established and no evidence of competing claims.
Key Takeaways
- A final charging order may be made despite unresolved assertions of prior equitable security; priority can be dealt with separately.
- Arguments about a debtor’s home or disability may be more relevant to any later order-for-sale application than to the charging order itself.
- A third-party debt order can attach a bank balance where the debt, jurisdiction and situs are established and no competing claimant is identified.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the High Court’s willingness to use conventional enforcement measures to secure and recover debts under an English default judgment enforcing a foreign judgment. It also confirms that a debtor cannot rely on unsubstantiated asset or personal-circumstances assertions after failing to comply with court-ordered disclosure.