Michael v Michael (No. 2) [2025] EWFC 244

Judgment date: 13 January 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/244

HHJ Hess, sitting as a DHCJ, addresses appointment of a receiver as way to enforce judgment orders.

Issues

In January 2025 the court considered a wife’s enforcement application in relation to the husband’s shares in a company, the husband’s one share in a company, and the assets of a company. The primary issue before the court was whether to accede to the wife’s request to appoint receivers to help enforce the various orders made during the proceedings, in particular the enforcement of orders made in December 2023 and October 2024.

The husband had failed to pay a maintenance pending suit order, a legal services payment order and a costs order made during the proceedings. The husband owed £1.3m and interest on the judgment debt of c.£32,000. The wife’s position was that the receivers should do what they can to extract assets for the enforcement of various orders that the judge had made during the proceedings. The husband sought an adjournment of the application.

Held

Where the court is considering appointing a receiver, the court will consider whether it is just and convenient to do so. Applying the principles set out in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd [2014] EWHC 3131 (Comm), [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 336, [2014] 10 WLUK 22, HHJ Hess concluded that it was just and convenient to appoint receivers.

The court first considered whether it was appropriate to make a receivership order in relation to the particular assets. The court had already made a finding in August 2024 that for all practical purposes the husband was able to do what he wanted in relation to the shares. The assets fell within the test set out in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2008] EWCA Civ 303, [2009] QB 450, [2008] 4 WLUK 119 and JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin [2015] EWHC 2131 (Comm), [2015] 7 WLUK 651. The husband had de facto control of the assets, and receivership orders could therefore properly be made in relation to them.

It was then necessary to consider if there was a reason for using the receivership option rather than another form of enforcement. The jurisdiction was not to be exercised unless there was some hindrance or difficulty in using the normal processes of execution. Bearing in mind the way the assets were held, HHJ Hess considered the receivership order a sensible and appropriate way forward.