Khazanchi and Another v Faircharm Investments Ltd and Others ; McLeod v Butterwick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MORRITT,LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | [1998] EWCA Civ J0317-9 |
| Docket Number | CCRTF 97/0539 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 17 March 1998 |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Morritt and Lord Justice Waller
Execution - distress for rent - forcible entry by sheriff or bailiff - whether lawful
A bailiff distraining for rent or a sheriff executing a writ of fieri facias was not entitled forcibly to re-enter a dwelling-house in which goods were kept, for the purpose of removing them for sale, if the occupant had no knowledge of an intended visit and had locked the premises in the ordinary way and gone about his normal business.
The Court of Appeal so stated dismissing appeals by the plaintiff tenants, Deepak Kulmar Khazanchi and Manjit Singh Rattu, from the decision of Judge Cox in Uxbridge County Court (sitting at Lambeth) on March 24, 1997, and by the plaintiff, Sally McLeod, from the decision of Judge Roger Cooke sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division (The Times March 12, 1996; [1996] 1 WLR 995).
In the Khazanchi case, the third defendant bailiffs, Cuthbert and Kingsley, a firm, seeking to distrain on behalf of the first and second defendants, Faircharm Investments Ltd and Penway Ltd, for rent arrears, had entered the premises with the consent of the tenants and entered into a walking possession agreement with them which entitled him to remove the goods at any time after the specified date for payment. When the arrears were not paid the bailiff returned for the purpose of removing the goods. The premises were locked and there was no one inside.
The bailiffs, with the assistance of a locksmith and removal men, removed the lock, took the goods and resecured the premises, leaving the new key with the caretakers. In proceedings brought by the tenants, Judge Cox decided that the bailiffs were entitled to act as they had and dismissed the tenants' claim for damages.
In the McLeod case the sheriff, Anthony James Butterwick, entered the home of the plaintiff with her consent for the purpose of executing a writ of fieri facias. He did not remove any goods.
The plaintiff refused to enter into a walking possession agreement. Interpleader proceedings followed. Shortly after those proceedings were concluded, the sheriff, without prior notice, returned to the plaintiff's home for the purpose of removing the goods for sale. The plaintiff was out at work and there was no one at home.
The sheriff, with the assistance of a locksmith and removal men, removed the lock and goods and resecured the premises leaving a key to the new lock for the plaintiff to collect on her return.
The plaintiff sued the sheriff for damages and an injunction. Her application for an interlocutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial