Coren on Coroners: a whistle-stop tour

First, some (living) history

As Deemster Corlett remarked, at the valedictory ceremony for Gordon Leece, outgoing Coroner for Glenfaba and Michael, in 2019:

“There is no record of the origin of the office of Coroner. It has existed in the Isle of Man from time immemorial. The first reference to Coroners is contained in the 1st Ordinance, A.D. 1417 describing the formalities to be observed on Tynwald Day. At page 4 it is stated “And your Deemsters shall make call in the Coroner of Glenfaba; and he shall call in all the Coroners of Man, and their yards in their hands, with their weapons upon them either sword or axe … then the Chief Coroner that is the Coroner of Glenfaba shall make affence upon paine of life and lyme that noe man make any disturbance or stirr in the time of Tynwald or any murmur or rising in the King’s presence upon paine of hanging and drawing”.”

An early – but still in force – statutory provision on Coroners in the Isle of Man is s 11 Customary Laws Act 1417:

“Also it is our Law, that no Coron. arrest any Man for Debt owinge, unless he have a special Warrant from the Lord or his Lieutenant; but in Points of Fellony, or delivering of Servants, or for Surety of the Peace, with many other Points that belong unto his Office, he ought to do these by vertue of his office without Warrant”.

Likewise still remaining in force is s 49 Customary Laws Act 1422:

“… be it ordained that at the next Court after Midsomer the Coroners be made, and their Names entered into the Rolls of the Court, with the Sume that he taketh for to serve”.

Over time, Coroners’ functions veered away from criminal law enforcement. They now include jury summonses and two areas covered here: process service and enforcement of judgments.

Coroners are appointed by the Chief Registrar. Coroners’ jurisdiction is enshrined in s 2 of the Coroners Act 1983.

There are today four Coroners and they cover the following sheadings (administrative districts):

• Ayre and Garff (Gareth Leece)
• Glenfaba and Michael (Stuart Gardner)
• Middle (Kelly Sloane)
• Rushen (Mark Wrigley).

[1] Process service

A key role of the Coroner is to serve a claim form.

Under Rule 2.37, a claimant: “must… cause the claim form to be served by a coroner on the defendant in accordance with the following provisions of this rule”. (This rule does not apply if the claim form is to be served on an advocate authorised to accept service (Rule 2.36) or where service is out of the jurisdiction (Rule 2.41) or by alternative method (Rule 2.30)).

Rule 2.38 requires the Coroner to send the claimant a notice of service.

High Bailiff Needham (as he then was) in Tower Credit Ltd v Dadds & another (SUM 2010/16) (30.01.17) (at §§ 31-37) offered guidance on the various permitted methods of service.

At § 32, he concluded that Rule 2.37: “should be read in conjunction with the general rules of service regarding the address for service as set out in rule 2.27(6)(b), namely for an individual, service should be at the usual or last known residence”.

He concluded (at § 37):

“… before using a last known address, a claimant is duty bound to make a reasonable inquiry as to the defendant’s correct address and if having made such inquiries the claimant cannot find the Defendant he/she can rely on serving at the last known address. If a claimant already knows the address of the defendant but chooses to ignore that because, say it is out of the jurisdiction and inconvenient in terms of requiring additional leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, it is not appropriate to put forward an old address for the defendant in the Isle of Man. Any letterbox service under that premise, despite the involvement of the Coroner, would be irregular leading to an irregular judgment being obtained under rule 10.34.”

[2] Enforcement of judgments

A further key role of the Coroner is to enforce judgments.

Execution order

An execution (or judgment enforcement) order – otherwise than on a default judgment or judgment on admission (as to which see Rule 12.8) – may be applied for under Rule 12.9(1).

Where the condition in Rule 12.9(1)(a) – “judgment is entered or given or for, or an order is made for the payment of, a specified amount of money” – has been met, issue of execution by the Court, upon an application being made, is mandatory: Alder Lloyds Bank International Ltd (2DS 2017/9) (12.06.17) (at § 83).

The jurisdiction to enforce an execution order is governed by s 13 of the 1981 Act:

“(a) by arrest and sale of the execution debtor’s property other than land in accordance with Schedule 1; (b) by arrest and sale of any of the execution debtor’s land, in accordance with Schedule 2”.

Arrest and sale of land of execution debtor

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”) provides that a Coroner may:

“subject to the provisions of Part II and of this Schedule and to any order… arrest, in the enforcement of an execution order, any land in which the execution debtor has a saleable interest”.

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the 1981 Act provides:

“Unless the manner of arresting land under paragraph 1 shall be otherwise prescribed, the Coroner shall arrest land under that paragraph by entering upon the land which he intends to arrest and affixing a notice to a conspicuous part of the land or premises forming part of the land stating that the land has been arrested by the Coroner and giving his name and address. Except when enforcing orders for possession or the recovery of deserted premises, a Coroner shall not forcibly enter premises which are closed against him without having leave from a Deemster. After arresting land the Coroner must then prepare an inventory of all land which he has so arrested. A copy of the said inventory shall be delivered to the execution debtor if he so requests” [underlining added].

Rule 12.13 deals with a Coroner’s application to enter premises forcibly, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.

In Future Loans Ltd v Wright (SUM 2010/134) (17.12.15), Deemster Corlett held (at §§ 2-3 and 6):

“2. It has always been my understanding, and that is reinforced by the clear wording of Schedule 2, paragraph 2 to the [AJA] 1981 and indeed looking at the Act as a whole, that the arrest and sale of land is primarily a matter for the Coroner.

3. The Coroner is an ancient office and it is the Coroner who is in charge of matters. The court does not become involved unless there are very exceptional reasons for the court’s involvement. That has always been the case in the Isle of Man. We do not have the concept of “possession orders” in relation to this type of issue. The coroner simply arrests land and then he proceeds to auction the property. It is only when the property, or to use the precise wording ‘premises’, are “closed against him” that he needs to apply to a Deemster…

6. The legislation does not permit a forced entry without permission of a Deemster, and if an occupant does say ‘no’… and closes the door in the Coroner’s face, then the Coroner has absolutely no reason not to apply to the court, and has every reason to do so under Schedule 2, paragraph 2 [of the AJA 1981]” [underlining added].

The effect of an arrest by the Coroner is to charge the execution debtor’s estate and interest in the land: para 3, Schedule 2 of the 1981 Act.

So much for the statutory position. What about the customary and human rights position?

In Foxdale Properties v Booth (SUM 2003/2016) (17.06.10) – in dicta also applied by Acting Deemster Wild in Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets PLC v Wilmot & another (ORD 24/0042) (12.12.25) (§§ 32-33) – High Bailiff Needham (as he then was) (at §§ 6, 11 and 13) held:

“6. It appeared to be agreed that by custom, where the coroner sought to sell land which is used as a residence leave of the court is sought for such sale… if the application had not been made on behalf of the judgment creditor as a result of reliance upon paragraph 5, the debtor would have applied to the court for an order against sale. I note the customary method of dealing with such applications and I am satisfied that the Court’s discretion under Schedule 2 of the 1981 Act is sufficiently wide to encompass an application from either creditor or debtor as to whether the property should be sold…

11.  As to human rights considerations, His Honour Judge Purle, Q.C. [in Close Invoice Finance Ltd – v – Pile [2008] EWHC 1580 (Ch)] stated:

   … 13. … Human Rights have to be taken into account and the court’s discretion must be applied compatibly with the [ECHR.] I am quite satisfied that the power to enforce a charging order is compatible with the [ECHR]… I am also satisfied, however, that, in applying the court’s discretion, it must be applied in a way which gives due respect to the right of all those living in the property, not just the debtors, to have respect for their family life and their home. Against that must be weighed the rights of the chargee under the equitable charge, that is, to say the Claimant, not to have to wait indefinitely for payment or to have no means of enforcing its security.

13. I will need to consider all relevant circumstances including: the amount of money owed, the length of time such money has been outstanding, the efforts made by the debtor to pay the amount owed, the likely equity in the property available to satisfy the debt if a sale was ordered, the interests of other residential occupiers in particular any minors and the right of the creditor not to have to wait indefinitely for payment” [underlining added].

Land arrested must be sold by public auction, unless otherwise ordered by the court: para 5, Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1981 (see Barclays Bank PLC v Failte Property Ltd (ORD 22/0020) (21.12.23)) (Deemster Corlett at § 18).

At §§ 17 and 22 of Failte Property, Deemster Corlett considered the frequency of auctions. He also took judicial notice (when dealing with the predecessor to the Treasury Fees (Amendment) Order 2026) of the various work undertaken by Coroners when selling land.

For an unsuccessful last-minute attempt to injunct a Coroner’s auction, see Megson v Leece (SUM 22/0081) (01.12.22). Deemster Needham held (at § 18) that: “granting an adjournment will simply be a recipe for further delay and prevarication”.

As to a stay of enforcement, Rule 12.14(2) provides:

“Where the court is satisfied, on an application made by the judgment debtor at the time of the judgment or order, or at any time afterwards, —

(a) that there are special circumstances which render it inexpedient to enforce the judgment or order; or

(b) that the judgment debtor is unable for any reason to pay the money,

the court may by order stay the enforcement of the judgment or order either absolutely or for such period and subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit”.

This provision was considered in Treasury v Irving & another (ORD 2013/19) (10.10.18) (§§ 8-18).

Arrest and sale of goods of execution debtor

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1981 Act permits the Coroner:

“subject to the provisions of Part II, and of this Schedule and to any order… arrest, in the enforcement of an execution order, any of the following property… (a) money, bills of exchange, bonds and promissory notes and any other securities for money belonging to the execution debtor… (c) goods in which the execution debtor has a saleable interest in his own right… (f) any other property of the execution debtor other than land”.

Various exceptions are specified in paragraph 2.

Rule 13.11 deals with a claim in respect of any money or goods taken or intended to be taken in execution. Rule 13.12 deals with claims by those relying on one of the above exceptions.

Coroner’s inquiries

Section 8 and Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act contain significant – albeit, in practice, relatively rarely utilised – enforcement provisions relating to Coroner’s inquiries.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 deals with an attendance notice:

“(a) if the execution debtor is a person other than a company, a Coroner may, by notice under his hand, require the execution debtor to attend in person at a place, at such time and date as may be specified in the notice, to be examined by the Coroner as to his means and to produce all books, documents and things in his possession or under his control relevant to his means;

(b) if the execution debtor is a company, a Coroner may, by notice under his hand, require any person who is a director, officer or servant of that company to attend in person at a place, at such time and date as may be specified in the notice, to be examined by the Coroner as to the assets and liabilities of the company and to produce all books, documents and things in his possession or under his control relating to those assets and liabilities”.

Paragraph 2 deals with an information notice:

“Where it appears to the Coroner that any person is, or may be, able to give information, other than information obtained in his capacity as an advocate or advocate’s clerk, as to the means of an execution debtor or, as the case may be, the assets or liabilities of a company, or the property of a partnership, which is an execution debtor, the Coroner may, by notice under his hand, require that person to provide that information to the Coroner within such period (being a reasonable time) as may be specified in the notice”.

In the event of a failure to comply with an attendance notice or an information notice, the next enforcement step – under paragraph 3(1) – is an attendance order:

“… the Coroner may apply, in accordance with enforcement rules [*] to the High Court for an attendance order requiring that execution debtor, director, officer or servant of the  company or person required to provide information, as the case may be, to appear at a place to be examined by the Coroner in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule at a time and date to be specified in the order; and —

(i) in the case of an execution debtor, to produce all books, documents and things in his possession or under his control relevant to his means;

(ii) in the case of a director, officer or servant of a company, to produce all books, documents and things in his possession or under his control relevant to the assets and liabilities of the company;

(iii) in the case of a person required to provide information, to produce all books, documents and things in his possession or under his control relevant to that information”.

[* save that the following Rules have been repealed: Rules 8 to 10; Rules 18 to 24; In the Appendix, Forms 4, 5, 7 and 8: see Schedule 15.2)]]

Rule 12.52 deals with an application for an attendance order.

Failure without reasonable excuse to comply with an attendance order, issued under paragraph 3(2), is a contempt of the High Court: paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 3.

Attendance orders are rare in practice. One was, however, successfully obtained from Acting Deemster Gough on 28th October 2024 by Coren Law, instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, in Sodzawiczny v McNally & others (CHP 21/0078). It specified a date and time for the execution debtor to attend: “to be examined by the Coroner in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3… and to produce all books, documents and things in his possession or under his control relevant to his means”.

Paragraph 3(5) also provides:

“Where a person is examined by the Coroner under this Schedule, he may be examined on oath and, if so examined, his testimony shall be recorded in the form of a deposition in accordance with enforcement rules“.

Coroners’ fees 

Coroners’ fees are currently prescribed by Schedule 4 of the Treasury Fees (Amendment) Order 2026.

These range from more modest fees for process service to percentages of sums collected by way of enforcement.

For example, the prescribed fee: “for collecting by instalments, a debt resulting from any execution order, at the request of the execution creditor or his advocate” (one of the fees formerly known as poundage) is: “5% of the amount collected”.

The Coroner is said to be entitled to such a fee once execution is “in the hands of” the Coroner (per a letter from the Chief Registrar to Isle of Man Law Society and others (19.06.24), attaching letter from a former Chief Registrar (21.01.91) (this point has not been judicially determined).

Immunity & obstruction of a Coroner

Coroners have limited immunity: s 11(1) of the 1981 Act provides:

“Neither a Coroner nor a lockman shall be liable to be sued for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of their functions under this Act unless the Coroner or lockman wilfully or negligently failed to comply with the provisions of this Act”.

Wilful obstruction or impeding of a Coroner in the performance of his duties is an offence: s 16 of the 1981 Act.

Instrumental execution

As to the role of a Coroner if nominated by the High Court to execute a conveyance, contract or other documents, see s 45 High Court Act 1991 and Coren Law, Instrumental execution: the Manx civil litigator’s best-kept secret (shh!) – Coren Law.

Code of Conduct for Coroners

The Code of Conduct for Coroners – which also provides a helpful overview of Coroners’ work – is available on the Court’s website.

Note for practitioners: Coroners remain an integral part of the Isle of Man civil litigation eco-system. Several High Court decisions in recent years have offered useful guidance as to practice relating to Coroners, especially as to process service and enforcement of judgments. Coroner’s inquiries and attendance orders are available (but in practice surprisingly rare) mechanisms for obtaining disclosure of the execution debtor’s means.

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man civil procedure, or enforcement, or human rights, contact Coren Law.

See other Coren Law Legal Updates on civil procedure, enforcement and human rights.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.