Facts: A camper van had been sold and bought in rapid succession and Mercantile Credit obtained judgment against Frederick Wood in the High Court.
He did not pay and so a writ was issued and sheriff's officers levied on a camper van. Shortly after, Wood sold the van to the defendants, Modern Cars and Caravans who sold it to the plaintiffs, Lloyds & Scottish, who in turn sold it on HP to a Mr Worsfold. The sheriffs seized the camper van from Worsfold who then refused to pay Lloyds & Scottish. They in turn sued Modern Cars for selling them goods with a pre-existing sheriff's levy. Modern Cars tried to defend the claim there was no valid levy or the levy had been abandoned.
The analysis of taking possession and abandonment which followed is the only part of the judgment of interest.
The sheriff called at the caravan site where Wood lived in the van with his family on April 14 1961. The sheriff, unable to remove the van or remain in close possession, tried to get Wood to sign a walking-possession agreement which he refused because his wife claimed ownership of the van. The sheriff left the campsite leaving his employer's details, notes of the judgment and the creditor's solicitor as Wood said he wanted to arrange payments on the judgment with them.
Mrs Wood made and signed a formal claim to the van and on May 4 interpleader proceedings were begun.
The bailiff revisited the caravan site on April 18, 24 and 27, and on May 4, 5 and 8. He saw the van was still there and spoke to the Woods about their negotiations with the judgment creditor's solicitors. On May 10, 12 and 15 he visited but found no-one at home. On May 19 he visited and found that the van had gone because Modern Cars had taken it.
The judge held that there was a valid seizure of the caravan and its contents on 14 April 1961, despite the refusal to sign a walking-possession agreement. The conduct of the sheriff's officer demonstrated a clear intention to seize and communicate the seizure to the debtor. The subsequent visits and actions taken confirmed that there was no abandonment of the seizure prior to the van being removed by the third party.
The judgment considered various cases including Nash v Dickinson, Cave v Capel, Lumsden v Burnett, In re: Cooper, Bower v Hett, Ackland v Paynter, Bagshawes v Deacon, Blades v Arundale, Swann v Earl of Falmouth and others to support the reasoning that seizure and its continuance depend on conduct and intention, not necessarily continued physical presence.
1. A valid levy can be made with effective possession taken, without a signed walking-possession agreement.
2. The levy must be protected from abandonment.
3. Seizures without a signed possession agreement are therefore possible, but the bailiff must work at them diligently, making contact with the debtor at least once.
4. Contrasting opinion to White v Chapple [1847] when a sheriff's officer went out of possession of seized goods for a very short while in order to get a drink when another bailiff entered and levied.
5. A child cannot sign a walking-possession agreement. In England and Wales, a child is a person under 18.