Michael Burton vs Ministry of Justice

This case involved a dispute between Michael Burton and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) regarding the liability of a creditor for the actions of an enforcement agent who breached statutory procedure while executing a warrant of control.

TLDR:

• Mr. Burton was fined for a speeding offence, leading to a debt in favor of the MOJ.
• An enforcement agent clamped Mr. Burton's car despite it being on hire purchase.
• Mr. Burton sought damages from the MOJ for the wrongful clamping.
• The Court of Appeal ruled that the MOJ could be liable for the enforcement agent's breach.
• Mr. Burton was awarded damages for loss of use and transport costs.

The appellant, Michael Burton, was fined £193 by the Harrogate Magistrates' Court for a speeding offence on 12 February 2020. This fine, along with additional costs, resulted in a total debt of £308 owed to the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). On 30 December 2020, the court issued a warrant of control to enforce the fine. The MOJ engaged Marston Holdings Limited to act on its behalf, who in turn engaged a self-employed enforcement agent, Mr. Allen, to execute the warrant.

On 22 January 2021, Mr. Allen attended Mr. Burton's property to execute the warrant. Despite Mr. Burton informing Mr. Allen that his Citroen DS3 motor car was on hire purchase and showing a letter from the finance company, Mr. Allen proceeded to clamp the vehicle. Mr. Burton commenced proceedings against the MOJ in the Kingston-upon-Hull County Court on 9 February 2021, seeking an order to remove the clamp and claiming damages.

At a hearing on 15 February 2021, District Judge Boorman ordered the clamp to be removed and awarded Mr. Burton damages. However, this order was set aside on the MOJ's application, although the vehicle was not re-clamped. Deputy District Judge Burman later held that Mr. Burton did not have a beneficial interest in the vehicle, meaning it should not have been subjected to the Taking Control of Goods procedure. Despite this, the judge found that Mr. Allen had a reasonable belief that Mr. Burton held an interest in the vehicle, thus providing a defense under paragraph 66(8) of the Schedule.

Mr. Burton was granted permission to appeal, and the MOJ challenged the findings against it. Her Honour Judge Richardson ruled that Mr. Allen was not entitled to clamp the vehicle but found that the MOJ had not caused or contributed to the loss and was not liable for damages. Mr. Burton appealed to the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the MOJ could be held liable under paragraph 66 of the Schedule.

The Court of Appeal ruled that paragraph 66 expressly provides that the court may order the creditor to pay damages for losses suffered by the debtor due to a breach by the enforcement agent. This liability is not conditional on any act or omission by the creditor. The court emphasized that the creditor's liability is solely dependent on the enforcement agent's actions.

Mr. Burton's evidence of financial losses included high taxi costs and loss of use of the vehicle. The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Burton was entitled to both general damages for loss of use and special damages for transport costs. The court awarded Mr. Burton £905 in total damages plus interest.

Legal representatives: Daniel Kessler (instructed by The Law Office of Sarah Hougie) for the Appellant, Raghav Trivedi (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Arnold, and Lord Justice Phillips.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 681