Jump to content

Sherforce lost the plot and the case:

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4271 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts


In brief, this is a very recent appeal to the High Court by Claire Sandbrook (Sherforce) following the refusal last October by Deputy Master Hoffman to restrain the Interpleader claimant (DSI Foods Ltd) from bringing an action against her. By way of background, DSI Foods is a company that provides in flight foods for various airlines. You will see that she LOST the case!!

You will note from the Judgment that Sherforce were heavily criticised by the Master for failing to abide by the Directions of the court etc and the Judge seemed to consider that our good “friend” Chris Badger was being less that truthful in his Witness Statement. Oh Bless him!!!

The case has been picked up by many legal firms and simple Google searches using Huntress Search Ltd v Canapeum Ltd will reveal many references. The following text if from one legal firm: is an interesting one:

A judgment creditor may enforce its judgment by seizing and selling at auction a debtor’s goods. In the High Court, a judgment creditor applies to an enforcement officer (formerly called a sheriff) to attend at the debtor’s premises to seize goods. In the county court a bailiff is instructed.

Proceedings were brought by DSI Foods Limited (DSI) against the enforcement officer who had attended at their premises. DSI were not the judgment debtor, but the enforcement officer had refused to read documents offered by DSI. The financial controller of DSI had only been able to bring the execution to an end by permitting a payment to be made against his personal debit card. The enforcement officer applied for an order restraining these proceedings, but the Master refused to grant the enforcement officer the relief claimed. The enforcement officer appealed.

As the court noted, there is relatively little authority giving guidance as to when relief should be granted. Previous case law acknowledged that a sheriff is entitled to protection where the claimant had not suffered a real and substantial grievance. So the question was, whether in the light of the limited case law available, had DSI incurred a real and substantial grievance?

On the facts of this case, the court held that the Master was entitled to conclude that DSI had suffered a real and substantial grievance in respect of the attitude and conduct of the enforcement officers. The enforcement officers refused to consider any of the oral and documentary evidence that they were not the judgment debtors, that the premises did not belong to the judgment debtor and that there were no assets belonging to the judgment debtor on the premises. DSI also suffered financial loss as a result of the interruption to business and the need to destroy food which was being processed at the material time and which had become contaminated as a result of the enforcement officer’s attendance at the premises.

In addition, as the enforcement officers attended at an address which was not on the appropriate form, a question arose as to whether the enforcement officer only had authority to carry out execution at that address. The court held that the duty of enforcement was to be defined in terms of a specific address or addresses rather than by reference merely to a wide geographical jurisdiction although it was not determinative of the appeal itself.

This case is of note as there has been very case law on the ability of an enforcement officer to apply for relief. This case confirms that a court will explore whether a claimant has suffered a real and substantial grievance when considering relief. In addition, as a practical point, judgment creditors should make clear which address or addresses the enforcement officer is to attend rather than relying on an enforcement officer’s general jurisdiction for the area so as to avoid any confusion.

Huntress Search Limited (Claimant) v Canapeum Limited (Defendant) and DSI Foods Limited (Interpleader Claimant) [2010] EWHC 1270

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a stunning Judgment and I will read it in full later today and respond more tomorrow.


It is CLEAR however that the Judge was most critical of Sherforce and frankly, from the small amount that I have read so far.... he is justified in what he has said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article to read and makes one wonder what is happening in Essex. There used to be 5 HCEOS listed by their website - one left to go to Rossendales - now I note another appears to have left leaving only 3. Is the good ship Sherforce floundering? If so serves them right due to their attitude and actions - let's hope things get even worse.



Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi postggj


TT hopefully will be able to comment on the impact this judgement will have for the poor s*ds who have no idea they are being fleeced and simply pay up without argument.

If you read the posts by some of those who lost their livelihoods (at worst) such as "letsfightbailiffs" who found that Sherforce sneaked in the back door and got protection so the HCEO could not to be held accountable for her actions, by using High Court Interpleaders, which for the lay person and those unable to afford legal representation appeared formidible.

I was visited by Sherforce and everything that happened in this case happened to me...I offered written proof the premises they were attending were the wrong premises, they ignored me and refused to speak with me, as I was not the person they wanted the money from but, nevertheless they were prepared to remove all the stock from the premises even though I was not the debtor, they threatened my staff with violence...they neither showed or gave any paperwork to substantiate reason for attending...they added a multitude of fraudulent costs for work they never did...etc etc etc.... and my personal account had to pay them upfront to protect my business and I then had to fight to get that back, when I challenged THEY entered an Interpleader which I assumed was a hearing to raise my concerns over the whole senario but in reality was merely an exercise to get the HCEO protected from the private action I was going to take against her. I never understood this Interpleader so naturally they walked in and trampled any hopes of getting justice for all the wrongs they had committed.

They obviously make it a regular thing to enforce in this way and this time they came unstuck and have been exposed as unscrupulous liars and shysters. I will follow this with great interest and hope they are now made to pay thousands of pounds in compensation to this company.



Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...