This is a useful High Court judgment and one that should serve as a reminder to anyone considering litigation, that an error by an enforcement agent is not automatically trespass and most importantly, that any claims for loss/damages etc must be proved to arise directly from the agents misconduct -which very often will be difficult to prove. There is also the matter of the need to provide evidence to support any claims (something that was seriously lacking in this case). Background to claim: On 12th March 2015, a writ of control was issued against Mr Miller for £408,00. This related to a judgment from March 2010 for £330,000. I am assuming that the difference between both figures relates to interest on the debt. The Creditor passed the writ of control to a High Court enforcement company to enforce. Of significance, was that the address on the writ was ‘Sunnyview’. In 2014, Mr Miller had moved from that address to a rented property (called Yew Tree). On 26th March 2015, the enforcement agent visited an airfield*where Mr Miller had a business.The purpose of the visit had been to locate two small aircrafts (a Pitts and a De Havilland Chipmunk owned by Miller). The enforcement agent met with Mr Miller and took control of the vehicle that he had been driving (a Jeep), and one of the aircraft (the Pitt). The claimant made payment of £1,600 towards the judgment.Goods were not removed that day. Following the meeting, Mr Miller claimed that the enforcement agent went around the airfield ‘questioning everyone’before gaining peaceful entry into an airfield building where he looked for documents. He left, taking documents and keys to the aircrafts. The Enforcement Agent then went to an alternative address (xxxxx Mills) to make enquiries. Mr Miller had told the enforcement agent that this location was connected to his business. There he was allowed access to the property to search for the second plane; (the De Havilland Chipmunk). The plane was there, together with other aeronautical parts belonging to Mr Miller. A short while later, Mr Miller removed the plane to a friend’s barn in Cirencester. The following day, (27th March 2015) Mr Miller visited the High Court and made an application for a temporary 'stay’ of the writ. The stay was lifted 2 months later (on 27th May 2015) and re-imposed on 5th June 2015 (it was finally lifted on 24th July 2015 after he failed in an application to ‘set aside’ the judgment). Mr Miller's arrest and charge of ‘interfering with controlled goods. Despite a ‘stay’ being imposed, and despite his Jeep and one of the aircrafts being ‘taken into control’, Mr Miller removed the aircraft and aeronautical parts to various locations including his rented property (‘Yew Tree’). *He parked the PITTS on his driveway under a tarpaulin. The enforcement agent became aware that the seized items had been moved and accordingly, on 20th June 2015, he attended ‘Yew Tree’ . Nothing was removed on that day. Instead, the police were called and Mr Miller was arrested and charged with ‘inferring with controlled goods’. The court stay was finally lifted on 24th July 2015 and the following day, the enforcement agent removed goods. Further items were removed a couple of days later. According to Mr Miller, he had a number of hearings for the criminal charge, the final one being in January 2016 at Swindon Magistrates Court where he claimed that he had been acquitted. No details appeared to have been provided for the acquittal (more on this shortly). He claimed that the Magistrates Court had supposedly been satisfied that he had moved from ‘Sunnyview’ to ‘Yew Tree’ in April 2014. It would appear that he had been assisted in court by an internet sourced ‘Mc Kenzie Friend’. Removal of goods and sale. The goods were eventually removed by the enforcement agent at the end of July 2015 and sold at public auction for £34,000. The auction was advertised. (Continued in following post):