header-logo header-logo

Claiming for failure

08 January 2016
Issue: 7681 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

How can a judgment creditor extract payment by the judgment debtor of enforcement fees and interest (especially those of an enforcement agent) which arise out of an unsuccessful attempt at execution? Can they, for example, be added to the judgment debt on a subsequent charging order application?

The court is empowered by CPR 44.2 to award costs to the judgment creditor which have been reasonably incurred and are reasonable and proportionate in amount even though they relate to an enforcement attempt which has been unsuccessful. It is surprising, for example, that when a judgment creditor abandons an application for a third party debt order because the third party is not holding any money due to the judgment debtor that the judgment creditor very rarely asks for their abortive fixed costs to be added to the judgment debt. What, however, the judgment creditor is not entitled to do is to unilaterally add abortive enforcement costs—and those incurred through unsuccessful execution can now be quite substantial—to the judgment debt when they come to make their next attempt

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll