To substantiate a claim for damages to your business reputation or defamation resulting from unlawful bailiff actions, you must provide evidence by comparing sales receipts from the 90 days immediately preceding the incident with those from after the event to demonstrate the loss and show how the bailiff's action caused this.

The debtor can bring the action under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 by making an application under Civil Procedure Rule 84.13.

There is case law that establishes the grounds and quantifies the extent of damages.

An expert is essential to qualify the damages, as these must be demonstrable losses. The legal argument must detail which enforcement provisions were breached.

Begin by documenting, in your own words, the chronological sequence of events leading up to the damage claimed. Then, compile evidence to support the extent of the damage incurred.

---

Case law

Huntress Search Ltd v Canapeum Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 1270 (QB)

The proceedings were initiated by the Interpleader claimant (now a Third-Party claimant) against the enforcement agent, Christopher Badger, who visited their premises.

The Interpleader claimant was not the judgment debtor, but the enforcement agent refused to review the documents shown to him by the claimant to prove this.

The claimant stopped the enforcement by paying the debt with his debit card. The enforcement agent sought to prevent the Interpleader claimant from pursuing a damages claim, but the court rejected his application.

The enforcement agent subsequently appealed this decision.

Brief judgment details:

1. Paragraph 33. The Claimant had suffered a real and substantial loss in respect of the attitude and conduct of the enforcement agent.

2. Paragraph 36(i). The enforcement agent refused to consider any of the oral and documentary evidence that they were not the judgment debtor

3. Paragraph 36(ii). The premises did not belong to the judgment debtor, and there were no assets belonging to the judgment debtor on the premises.

4. Paragraph 35. The Claimant also suffered financial loss as a result of the interruption to business and the need to destroy food which was being processed at the material time and which had become contaminated as a result of the enforcement agents' attendance at the premises wearing incorrect apparel.

5. Paragraph 37. The enforcement agent attended at an address not on his documents, and the enforcement agent only had the authority to execute at that address.

Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777

The claimant rented a warehouse in East London from the defendant. In June 1834, the tenant informed the landlord that he would be away on business in Liverpool for a few days but would pay the upcoming quarterly rent upon his return.

The landlord agreed to this arrangement, and the tenant departed, leaving a 14-year-old boy in charge of the warehouse.

The following day, the landlord encountered the boy outside the warehouse and assaulted him, demanding the key to the premises. Two days later, the landlord entered the warehouse with two other men, declaring his intention to distrain.

They began making an inventory, but when the boy refused to hand over the keys, the landlord summoned the police. The landlord threatened the boy with arrest, causing him to cry as a crowd gathered outside.

The men conducting the levy stayed for about two hours; after they left, a constable remained outside the door for another half hour. The landlord placed a "to let" notice in the warehouse window and initially refused to release goods to a tenant customer.

When the tenant returned to London, he immediately paid the rent but then filed a claim for trespass and damage to reputation.

The jury awarded damages to the claimant.

Smith v Enright [1894] 69 LT 724

Compensation encompasses not only the direct financial losses caused by enforcement actions but also includes damages for annoyance and harm to credit and reputation within the business community.