Katherine Hallett

This is an interesting County Court judgment worth knowing about. It concerned a fraud perpetrated on a Defendant by someone pretending to be a Court enforcement officer, who was using fake Court documentation.  

Case overview 

The Claimant issued proceedings against the Defendant in the Civil National Business Centre (‘the CNBC’), seeking damages for breach of contract. The Defendant failed to acknowledge service or file a Defence, so the Claimant obtained judgment in default.  

The Defendant was contacted by telephone by someone claiming to be an enforcement officer at the Court. The Defendant received subsequent email correspondence. At the fraudster’s request, the Defendant paid a sum of money as “proof of funds”, which should have then been returned. The judgment was supposed to be set aside, and the fraudster provided a certificate purporting to show that this had been done.  

In the meantime, the Claimant applied for and obtained an interim third party debt order. When sums were taken from the Defendant’s bank account pursuant to that order, it wrote to the Court and eventually applied to set aside the judgment in default.  

The District Judge set aside the judgment in default and discharged the third party debt order. After hearing oral evidence, it was agreed between the parties that the certificate was indeed invalid: there had been a scam involving “an unknown third party bad-faith operator”. The DJ went on to find that the judgment in default should be set aside: whilst the Defendant’s evidence did not show a real prospect of successfully defending the claim (CPR, r.13.3(1)(a)), there was some other good reason why the judgment should be set aside (r.13.3(1)(b)); the application had been made promptly; and the Court’s discretion should be exercised (in considering the relief from sanctions test under r.3.9).   

Important points to note 

Of wider importance are paras.31-2, which read as follows: –  

  1. This judgment does not serve as formal guidance regarding such scams. Rather, it simply highlights some obvious common-sensical cross-checks for litigants to conduct if concerned about the veracity of any enforcement approach which may benefit the public at large; 

 

  1. Be aware that the County Court will not ‘cold call’ any litigant demanding a payment of a judgment sum into court;  
  2. Check the telephone number of any purported HMCTS building or staff member against the maintained telephone numbers on an official gov.uk website. For the CNBC, this can be found at https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/civil-national-business-centre-cnbc; 
  3. Check the email address number of any purported HMCTS building or staff member against the maintained email addresses on an official gov.uk website. For the CNBC, this can be found at https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/civil-national-business-centre-cnbc. Such addresses should ordinarily end @justice.gov.uk; 
  4. Check for obvious typographical errors in any email signature or header; 
  5. Check that any court seal is the current seal featuring the Tudor Crown; 
  6. Be aware of government guidance to stay vigilant against fraudsters posing as enforcement officers and bailiffshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-bailiff-and-enforcement-officer-scam 
  7. In the event that an individual is claiming to be a bailiff or enforcement officer, cross check their details against the Certificated Bailiff Register maintained by the government online at https://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/; 
  8. If in doubt, always consider seeking legal advice from a regulated lawyer or other verified sources of advice such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau or Advice Now. 

 

  1. Had the Defendant followed any of these safeguards in this case, it may well have avoided falling prey to this particular fraud. 

 

Litigants should bear these points in mind when interacting with the Court, or an entity which claims to be the Court.  

 

This case note was produced by Katherine Hallett. 

Disclaimer

This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.