Khazanchi & another v Faircharm Investments Ltd & another

Court of Appeal – Civil Division – 17 March 1998

[1998] 1 WLR 1603; [1998] 2 All ER 901; [1998] EWCA Civ 471

Summary of Khazanchi & Another v Faircharm Investments Ltd & Another [1998] EWCA Civ 471

This Court of Appeal judgment addresses whether a bailiff or sheriff, having previously lawfully entered and levied distress for rent or executed a writ of fieri facias, is entitled to forcibly re-enter premises without the occupant’s consent in order to remove goods for sale.

The appellants argued that such re-entry constituted trespass unless further consent or judicial authority was obtained. However, the Court of Appeal, in a leading judgment by Morritt LJ, held as follows:

• Although initial entry must be with consent or otherwise lawful, a bailiff or sheriff in lawful walking possession may re-enter the premises — including using reasonable force — in order to remove goods previously seized.
• The Court examined the history and legal framework of distress, including the Distress for Rent Act 1689, the Distress for Rent Act 1737, and the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1888, as well as the prescribed walking possession agreements introduced by the Distress for Rent Rules 1953.
• The longstanding practice of permitting re-entry under walking possession agreements was upheld, including clauses allowing re-entry "peaceably or by force, if required."
• The Court confirmed that the power to re-enter existed under both common law and statutory interpretation where goods remained subject to a lawful distress.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the re-entry was lawful and did not constitute trespass. This judgment affirms the principle that a bailiff with valid walking possession and a continuing legal right to enforce may re-enter premises to remove goods, even forcibly, for the purpose of sale.