It’s rare that a County Court decision is reported let alone merits any discussion, but a recent decision of District Judge Worthley has done just that.
The claim itself was unremarkable. The claimant, Associated Installations Limited, entered into a contract with All Asbestos Limited for the removal of asbestos from a school building at an agreed price of £41,995 + VAT. The claimant never paid the invoice because it claimed the work was defective. It eventually issued proceedings in the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) claiming nine heads of loss, including special damages of £171,500.08. The defendant was insured but did not instruct any solicitors and did not file a defence or acknowledge service. The claimant, predictably, requested default judgment limited to the special damages of £171,500.08 that it claimed, plus interest and costs which it obtained.
What followed next was anything but unremarkable. The claimant applied for a third-party debt order. As is routine, that application was transferred to the Worthing County Court where an order was made on paper. A few days later, the court received an email from the defendant which said:
“I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request clarification regarding the status of our claim [sic] on behalf of the defendant.
Under the guidance of the court and the court bailiff Mr Paul White, we acted in good faith to pay the agreed amount of £45,549.00 as proof of funds on 24/11/25, as we have a real prospect of defending this case. This payment was made on the understanding this would be honoured, and the judgement would be set aside and proof of funds returned to us "immediately" or within 2 days.
We have complied with the directions we received from the court in this regard. Please find attached Certificate of Cancellation and Certificate of Satisfaction dated 24/11/25 sealed by the court setting aside the judgement for 28 days, therefore we contest the formal objection from the claimant to overturn this decision.”
The email attached a document, bearing a court seal, described as a “Certificate of Satisfaction of Cancellation of Judgment after Suspension Order” issued by Northampton County Court, purporting to confirm judgment had been set aside.
An urgent hearing was listed where the claimant disputed that any funds had been paid in satisfaction of the debt, and was suspicious about the documents, having had confirmation from the CNBC they had not located this document in their records. A second hearing was listed at which more detail then became available.
It transpired that the defendant had been the victim of a sophisticated enforcement scam. They received a call from an individual claiming to be an Enforcement Officer and subsequently received email correspondence from [email protected] to the effect that by paying a sum into court, judgment would be cancelled. This was not a genuine court email address, but some of the details in the email signature did contain genuine phone numbers and postal addresses for the CNBC in Northampton and the email address included the text “cnbc.justice.gov.uk”.
The email also attached documents apparently bearing a court seal. The seal depicted the St Edward’s Crown chosen by the late Queen Elizabeth II which was replaced in 2024 by a more curved Tudor crown which contains the word “The County Court” around the bottom of the seal rather than the top. The defendants made a payment of £45,549 as requested to the account details given which, alas, was not a HMCTS account.
Enforcement fraud is not new, but it has become more sophisticated. When judgment is entered by a County Court, details appear on the Register of County Court Judgments, and the name of the defendant, the claim number and the amount of the judgment can be obtained from that relatively quickly. That provides a scammer with much of the information they need to mock up documents or prepare their patter that they are on the way to enforce that judgment.
Previously, a common enforcement fraud would be an individual purporting to be a bailiff turning up at premises demanding payment in satisfaction of the debt which he had details of. A vigilant party might then demand sight of a warrant of execution or details of a claim number, at which point the “bailiff” would leave, because he had neither. Now with the use of technology, very convincing documents can be produced depicting what appear to be genuine orders to fend off such enquiries.
Moreover, the court system itself can be impenetrable. The High Court largely now operates electronic files where staff can view everything filed on the CE-File. There is a single unified County Court with different hearing centres around the country. There are no counters to visit, and calls are handled through a central switchboard, where staff may not have access to all documents on the file. When a claim is transferred to a hearing centre, all that hearing centre receives is a limited print out of key dates and the value of the claim. The receiving court must then physically rebuild a paper file from scratch which can take months. Getting clarity about what has happened, and who to speak to, can be almost impossible.
The judge in this case gave some helpful pointers about what might have protected the defendant, including the following:
- Remember that the County Court will not “cold call” any litigant demanding a payment of a judgment sum into court.
- Check the email address. Those should ordinarily end @justice.gov.uk.
- Check any court seal is the current seal featuring the Tudor Crown.
- Cross-check details against the Certificated Bailiff Register maintained by the government online at https://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/
For those interested in the fate of the defendant, they were able to have judgment set aside on the basis the judge was persuaded there was a good reason why the claim should go to trial, but the funds paid in November 2025 (about the size of the unpaid invoice they intended to claim) almost certainly have been lost.
This is a salient tale, but ultimately fraud can deceive anyone. It’s critical to act quickly if you suspect you may have been targeted by fraud. We help clients prevent and investigate fraud and recover assets so please do contact our fraud team for advice on what options are available to you. Our fraud forum, Deception Diaries (Deception Diaries | Mills & Reeve), provides regular articles with insights on fraud-related issues, legal developments, and practical strategies to help businesses prevent and address fraud.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.