Not fair, Sheriff. Victorian Supreme Court sets aside the sale and declines immunity to the Sheriff.

In her first judgment published today in Hoskin v Griffin & ors [2018] VSC 216 newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Michelle Quigley ruled to set aside a sale by the Sheriff. The detailed ruling followed earlier continuing injunction orders restraining the Registrar of Titles from registering the transfer endorsed by the Sheriff.

The property was sold for only $180 more than the debt owing to the judgment creditor. The owner, judgment debtor, argued that the Sheriff’s actions in setting the low reserve, accepting a bid at that amount and executing a transfer of land for the property worked to defeat the registered owner’s interest and extinguished their substantial equity in the property.

Her Honour found that the Sheriff has breached his duty to both the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor by failing to obtain a fair price. Her Honour stated [at 164]:

Warrants of seizure and sale provide a means for executing court orders. This necessary process must be considered in light of the accepted duties attaching to that activity. Courts by necessity are independent and impartial bodies. In the execution of court processes, the Sheriff as a statutory office holder, must also be independent and impartial. This ensures judgment debtors are not unfairly disadvantaged and to the extent possible only property sufficient to satisfy the debt is forfeited by the judgment debtor.[94] These factors are no doubt reasons for the existence of the duty to act reasonably in the interest of the judgment debtor and judgment creditor in order to obtain a fair price.

Her Honour held that in these circumstances the immunity found in sub-section 25(2) of the Sheriff Act did not apply.

Her Honour ruled on liability only. We now look forward to the ruling on appropriate relief.