Home Information Cases VB Football Assets v (1) Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd (Formerly Segesta Ltd) (2) Owen Oyston (3) Karl Oyston (4) Blackpool Football Club Ltd (2018)

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

VB Football Assets v (1) Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd (Formerly Segesta Ltd) (2) Owen Oyston (3) Karl Oyston (4) Blackpool Football Club Ltd (2018)

Summary

Judgment debtors were refused an extension of time to make payments in instalments where they had failed to meet the first due date. They had been unable to sell assets, permission to appeal against the judgment had been refused, and the creditor was prejudiced by continuing to be denied his money. The court removed the provision for staged payments and allowed the creditor to take whatever steps it considered necessary to enforce the judgment.

Facts

The respondent judgment debtors applied for an extension of time to make payments to the petitioner as had been ordered.

In VB Football Assets v Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd (formerly Segesta Ltd) [2017] EWHC 2767 (Ch) the court had ordered the first, second and third respondents to buyout the shares held by a petitioner in the fourth respondent football club. The respondents sought permission to appeal and, after making an initial payment of £10 million, applied for more time to sell assets. The court allowed payment of the remaining debt of £25 million to be staggered over six months, and imposed a freezing injunction. The next payment was not made on the due date and the respondents asked for a further 19 days, submitting that they had been unable to realise assets and needed time to take out a bridging loan.

The petitioner submitted that the staged payments should be removed, the freezing order continued, and that he should be entitled to take whatever steps were necessary to enforce the entire judgment.

Held

Given the respondents' failure to sell assets since the judgment, the increased prejudice to the petitioner of being kept out of its money, and the fact that permission to appeal against the judgment had been refused, it was wrong to grant a further extension of time, even if it was only two or three weeks. The court's attempt to control the enforcement process had failed. The correct course was to continue the freezing order, remove the limits on enforcement and the provision for staged payments, and to permit the petitioner to act at its discretion to enforce the substantive judgment (see paras 30-33 of the judgment).

Application refused

Chancery Division (Companies Court)
Marcus Smith J
Judgment date
5 February 2018
References
[2018] EWHC 254 (Ch)