Case Study | How a 6 AM Visit Recovered £11,717 Employment Tribunal Award in 30 Days

Introduction

When an employment tribunal awards compensation for unpaid wages or unfair treatment, winning the judgment is only half the battle. The real challenge begins when employers refuse to pay—especially when they’re actively trying to dissolve their company to avoid the debt.

This case study examines how strategic high court enforcement recovered an £11,717 employment tribunal award in just 30 days, despite the employer’s attempts to evade payment through company dissolution. The decisive factor? A 6 AM enforcement visit that caught the debtor off-guard and resulted in full payment within two hours.

For professionals holding unpaid employment tribunal awards or businesses facing similar debt recovery challenges, this case reveals critical insights about enforcement timing, joint liability strategies, and the importance of distinguishing between business and personal assets.

Background: Employment Tribunal Awards and High Court Enforcement

Employment tribunals handle disputes between employees and employers, awarding compensation for issues like unpaid wages, unfair dismissal, or discrimination. In this case, Beth Golding won £7,928.04 plus £1,430.50 in costs against her former employer, S&L Construction Group Limited, and its director Steven Duncan.

Unlike standard debt collection, employment tribunal awards can be enforced through High Court writs, providing access to High Court Enforcement Officers with significantly broader powers than county court bailiffs. This distinction becomes critical when debtors attempt sophisticated evasion tactics.

The case presented several red flags from the outset:

Active strike-off proposal: Companies House records showed S&L Construction Group Limited had an active proposal to dissolve the company—a common tactic to avoid paying outstanding debts.

Joint liability: The writ named both the company and director Steven Duncan personally, creating joint and several liability that would prove strategically crucial.

Multiple addresses: The business operated from two locations—commercial premises at Hillside Farm and a residential address in Buckhurst Hill—requiring strategic decisions about where to focus enforcement efforts.

Construction business with assets: As a construction company, the debtor likely had valuable equipment, vehicles, and tools that could be seized to satisfy the judgment.

Initial Challenges: Delay Tactics and Strike-Off Attempts

The Compliance Stage

The high court enforcement process began on October 22, 2025, when Shergroup received the sealed writ. A Notice of Enforcement was sent to both registered addresses, giving the debtor seven days to pay before enforcement action commenced.

During this compliance period, several issues emerged:

Address complications: A postcode error (I99 6BY instead of IG9 6BY) required correcting and re-issuing the notice, slightly delaying the process.

No response: The seven-day compliance period expired with no payment and no communication from the debtor.

Company dissolution attempt: Companies House checks confirmed the active strike-off proposal, indicating the director was attempting to dissolve the company to avoid the debt—a criminal offense under Section 1001 of the Companies Act 2006 when outstanding liabilities exist.

Payment Plan Proposals

On November 12, 2025, the debtor finally made contact through his partner Lauren, requesting to discuss a payment plan. Steven Duncan himself then called, proposing £800 monthly payments.

This payment plan would have extended recovery over 15 months—an unacceptable timeline given the debtor’s clear attempt to dissolve the company and the presence of business assets. The enforcement team recognized this proposal as a delay tactic rather than a genuine inability to pay.

The decision was made to proceed with field enforcement rather than accept the payment plan—a judgment that would prove correct when full payment was secured within days.

First Enforcement Visit: Asset Identification

What Was Discovered

On November 24, 2025, enforcement agent Joe Fletcher conducted the first visit to Unit 2, Hillside Farm—the business premises. The visit revealed promising assets but required careful due diligence:

High-value vehicle: A vehicle with registration YP23FYR was observed on the property. Given the large outstanding balance, this appeared to offer significant leverage.

Verification essential: Before seizing any vehicle, proper checks were mandatory:

• HPI check confirmed the vehicle was free of finance
• DVLA check revealed the debtor was NOT the registered keeper
• Therefore, the vehicle could not legally be seized

This meticulous verification prevented potential legal complications from seizing property the debtor didn’t own—a critical lesson in proper enforcement procedures.

Intelligence gathering: While no assets were seized during this first visit, critical intelligence was gathered about the property layout, business operations, and presence of other potential assets including work vehicles and tools.

Second Enforcement Visit: The 6 AM Strategy

Early Morning Execution

On November 27, 2025, enforcement agents Joe Fletcher and Steve Paul executed a carefully planned second visit. The timing was strategic and decisive:

6:00 AM arrival: The agents arrived at Hillside Farm at dawn, ensuring:

• The debtor would be present and unable to move assets
• Business vehicles and equipment would be on site
• The element of surprise would prevent evasion
• Maximum psychological pressure would be applied

Immediate asset control: Upon arrival, agents identified a transit van displaying a private registration linked to S&L Construction Group. They immediately took control of this vehicle as a business asset, establishing tangible leverage before even entering the property.

Door-to-door contact: Agents made contact with the debtor’s wife at the front door. After several minutes, they were granted entry to the property.

The Critical Clarification

Once inside, agents explained the purpose of their visit and the £11,717.94 outstanding balance. The debtor’s response revealed his strategy:

Initial resistance: Steven Duncan stated he was unable to make payment and told agents they would need to take his van and tools. This suggested he believed limiting seizure to business assets would resolve the matter.

Game-changing clarification: The agents explained that the warrant was against Steven Duncan personally, not just his company. Personal assets within the property would also be considered for seizure.

This distinction transformed the negotiation. The debtor could no longer hide behind corporate structure or limit exposure to business assets alone. His personal possessions were now at risk.

Extended Negotiation and Resolution

Patient presence: The agents remained on site for approximately 90-120 minutes, giving the debtor time to “review the situation” and arrange funds.

Access to capital revealed: Despite previous claims of inability to pay and proposals for 15-month payment plans, Steven Duncan arranged full payment:

• First transfer: £5,000.00
• Second transfer: £6,717.94
• Total: £11,717.94 (complete outstanding balance)

Same-day resolution: Both payments were confirmed received on November 27, 2025, the same day as the enforcement visit. The case was immediately marked paid in full.

Why This Strategy Succeeded

Timing and Psychological Pressure

The 6 AM arrival created optimal conditions for successful debt enforcement proceedings:

Asset security: Early morning timing prevented the debtor from moving vehicles, equipment, or inventory before agents arrived.

Presence guaranteed: The debtor was at home and unable to claim unavailability or schedule conflicts.

Psychological impact: The early hour demonstrated serious enforcement intent and created significant pressure from the outset.

Business disruption threat: Taking control of the work van threatened immediate business operations, compelling urgent action.

Joint and Several Liability

Pursuing both the company and director personally proved strategically brilliant:

Corporate shield penetrated: The debtor couldn’t hide behind limited company structure or claim company had no assets while personal assets remained protected.

Strike-off irrelevant: Even if the company dissolution succeeded, Steven Duncan’s personal liability would remain, making the strike-off proposal pointless.

Expanded asset pool: Both business assets (van, tools, equipment) and personal assets (household items of value) were potentially subject to seizure.

Increased pressure: The threat to personal possessions creates significantly more urgency than threats to business assets alone.

Professional Execution

Several tactical elements contributed to the successful outcome:

Two-agent attendance: Joe Fletcher and Steve Paul working together provided witness verification and professional support.

Immediate asset seizure: Taking control of the work van upon arrival established concrete leverage before negotiations began.

Extended patience: Remaining on site for up to two hours demonstrated professionalism while allowing time for fund arrangement.

Clear communication: Explaining the personal liability aspect clearly and firmly changed the debtor’s calculation of consequences.

Proper due diligence: Previous HPI and DVLA checks prevented illegal seizure attempts and demonstrated professional standards.

Financial Breakdown: The Cost of Evasion

What the Debtor Paid

The original employment tribunal award was £7,928.04 plus £1,430.50 in costs—a total of £9,358.54.

By delaying payment through attempted company dissolution, payment plan negotiations, and resistance to enforcement, Steven Duncan ultimately paid:

• Original judgment: £7,928.04
• Judgment costs: £1,430.50
• Execution costs: £131.75
• Daily interest (8% p.a.): £510.45
• Compliance fees: £90.00
• First enforcement fees: £805.20
• Second enforcement fees: £594.00

Total paid: £11,717.94

Additional cost from delay: £2,359.40 (25% more than the original award)

The evasion tactics cost significantly more than immediate payment would have.

What the Claimant Recovered

After enforcement costs of £1,768.95 were deducted, Beth Golding received £9,948.99, comprising:

• Full original judgment (£7,928.04)
• Full judgment costs (£1,430.50)
• Execution costs (£80.00)
• Accrued interest (£510.45)

The claimant received everything awarded by the employment tribunal plus additional interest and some costs—complete vindication of her tribunal victory.

Key Lessons for Employment Tribunal Award Enforcement

For Employees Holding Awards

Transfer to High Court quickly: Don’t waste time with county court enforcement. High Court Enforcement Solutions provide significantly more power and better results.

Pursue directors personally: Where possible, ensure enforcement targets both the company and directors personally, preventing corporate shield tactics.

Monitor company status: Regularly check Companies House for dissolution attempts and file formal objections if necessary.

Reject inadequate payment plans: Monthly payment proposals from debtors with assets often represent unwillingness to pay, not inability.

Trust the process: Professional enforcement agents understand debtor psychology and effective pressure tactics.

For Enforcement Professionals

Early morning visits work: 6 AM arrivals prevent asset movement, ensure presence, and maximize psychological pressure for business-related enforcement.

Clarify personal vs. corporate liability: Make debtors understand when personal assets are at risk, not just business property.

Verify vehicle ownership: Always conduct HPI and DVLA checks before attempting seizure to prevent legal complications.

Use immediate asset control: Taking control of visible assets upon arrival establishes tangible leverage before negotiations.

Be patient on site: Extended presence (90-120 minutes) allows debtors time to arrange funds while maintaining pressure.

Target business premises: Commercial locations often yield better results than residential addresses for business debt.

Understanding Joint Liability in Company Debt Cases

How Joint Liability Works

When an employment tribunal or court names both a company and its director(s) personally, it creates joint and several liability. This means:

Either party can be pursued: The creditor can seek full payment from either the company or the director individually.

Full recovery from one: The creditor doesn’t need to split recovery between parties—full payment from one satisfies the entire debt.

No corporate shield: Directors cannot claim the debt belongs to the company while keeping personal assets protected.

Dissolution doesn’t help: Dissolving the company doesn’t discharge personal liability of named directors.

In this case, the joint liability proved crucial when S&L Construction Group Limited attempted to strike off. Even if successful, Steven Duncan’s personal obligation would remain.

When Joint Liability Applies

Employment tribunals commonly name both employers (companies) and individual respondents (directors or managers) in awards, particularly for:

• Unpaid wages or salary
• Unfair dismissal compensation
• Discrimination awards
• Breach of contract claims

This dual targeting provides employees with stronger enforcement options than standard business debt cases.

The Role of Early Morning Enforcement

Why 6 AM Visits Are Effective

Early morning enforcement visits between 6-7 AM offer distinct advantages for business debt recovery:

Asset security: Business vehicles, equipment, and inventory are typically on site and haven’t been moved to job sites or hidden.

Guaranteed presence: Residential visits at dawn ensure debtors are home and cannot claim scheduling conflicts.

Business disruption: Taking control of work vehicles before the business day begins threatens immediate operational impact.

Psychological pressure: The unusual hour demonstrates serious intent and creates significant stress that compels action.

Limited preparation time: Debtors have no opportunity to remove assets, seek advice, or prepare resistance strategies.

Legal Considerations

Early morning visits must still comply with enforcement regulations:

Reasonable hours: Visits between 6 AM and 9 PM are generally considered reasonable for enforcement purposes.

No forced entry (residential): At residential properties, agents cannot force entry without specific authority, regardless of time.

Business premises different: Commercial locations may have different rules regarding forced entry after taking control of external assets.

Professional conduct: Agents must remain professional and respectful regardless of hour.

In this case, the 6 AM arrival was perfectly legal and strategically brilliant, resulting in voluntary admission to the property and full payment within hours.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can employment tribunal awards be enforced through the High Court?

Yes. Employment tribunal awards can be transferred to the High Court for enforcement through a Writ of Control. This process gives access to High Court Enforcement Officers who have broader powers than county court bailiffs, including authority to seize business assets and apply greater pressure to company directors. The enforcement of employment tribunal awards through the High Court is often significantly more effective than county court enforcement, particularly when company directors attempt evasion tactics.

What is joint and several liability in employment cases?

Joint and several liability means both the company and individual directors can be held responsible for the full debt. When an employment tribunal names both the employer company and individual respondents, creditors can pursue either or both parties for complete recovery. This prevents directors from hiding behind limited company structure and makes company dissolution attempts ineffective, as personal liability remains even if the company is struck off.

Can enforcement agents seize business assets at residential properties?

Yes. If business assets are present at residential properties, enforcement agents can seize those items even though the location is someone’s home. The distinction is between protected personal household goods (furniture, appliances, clothing) and business assets (work vehicles, equipment, tools, inventory). Directors who operate businesses from home or store business assets at residential addresses cannot claim residential protections for those business items.

Why are early morning enforcement visits more effective?

Early morning visits (6-7 AM) are highly effective for business debt recovery because they prevent asset movement, ensure the debtor is present, create psychological pressure, and threaten immediate business disruption. Business vehicles and equipment are typically on site before the workday begins, making them accessible for seizure. The unusual hour demonstrates serious enforcement intent and compels urgent action. In documented cases, early morning visits have resulted in same-day full payment that months of standard enforcement attempts could not achieve.

What happens if a company tries to dissolve while owing tribunal awards?

Under Section 1001 of the Companies Act 2006, applying to strike off a company while outstanding liabilities exist is a criminal offense. Creditors can file formal objections with Companies House, providing evidence of debts and ongoing enforcement proceedings. Companies House will typically suspend dissolution applications when valid objections are filed. More importantly, if the employment tribunal award names directors personally with joint and several liability, company dissolution does not discharge their personal obligations—the debt remains enforceable against individuals even if the company is struck off.

Conclusion: Strategic Enforcement Achieves Complete Recovery

This case demonstrates that employment tribunal awards are not just legal victories—they can become complete financial recoveries through strategic high court enforcement. Despite the employer’s attempts to evade payment through company dissolution proposals, payment plan delays, and initial resistance, professional enforcement secured full recovery in just 30 days.

The decisive factors were clear: joint and several liability that prevented corporate shield tactics, a strategically timed 6 AM visit that prevented asset movement, immediate seizure of business vehicles that created tangible pressure, and patient professional execution that gave the debtor time to arrange funds while maintaining firm enforcement stance.

For employees holding unpaid employment tribunal awards, this case should provide confidence that even sophisticated evasion tactics can be overcome with proper enforcement. The combination of legal authority, strategic execution, and professional persistence can transform paper judgments into actual compensation.

The key is acting quickly—transferring awards to the High Court early, rejecting inadequate payment plans, and trusting experienced enforcement professionals who understand debtor psychology and effective pressure tactics.

Take Action on Your Unpaid Employment Tribunal Award

If you’ve won an employment tribunal award that remains unpaid, or if your former employer is attempting to dissolve their company to avoid paying, Shergroup’s High Court Enforcement Solutions can help you recover what you’re owed.

Our certified High Court Enforcement Officers have the authority, experience, and strategic expertise to enforce employment tribunal awards effectively—even against debtors using sophisticated evasion tactics like company dissolution or asset hiding.

Don’t let your tribunal victory become a paper judgment. Contact Shergroup today to discuss your case and learn how we can help you achieve complete recovery of your employment tribunal award.
Contact Shergroup today to discuss how High Court enforcement can recover your employment tribunal award:

You can reach us:

By  Phone: 020 3588 4240

Website: www.shergroup.com (you can chat to us from here)

Email: [email protected]

Facebook: Check out Shergroup on this channel and message us

Twitter: Check out ShergroupChat on this channel and message us

LINKEDIN: Check out Shergroup’s LINKEDIN – and please FOLLOW us!

Instagram: Check out ShergroupChatter

YouTube: Check out Shergroup YouTube Channel – and Subscribe to Our Channel!

Google My Business: https://maps.app.goo.gl/J1pUNBKfFv2SVnjQ6

Our B2B No Win No Fee Debt Collection service means you only pay when we successfully recover your debt. Learn more about what High Court enforcement involves and how it can work for your situation.

Don’t let employers avoid tribunal awards by hiding behind corporate structures or proposing endless payment plans. Professional enforcement puts you in control.