header-logo header-logo

Court Funds

12 February 2010
Issue: 7404 / Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

Court Funds (Amendment) Rules 2010 (SI 2010/172)

Amend the Court Funds Rules 1987 (SI 1987/821) to simplify the administration and management of funds held in court. In particular:

  • R 19 is modified to allow litigants in person involved in proceedings at the Royal Courts of Justice who do not have a bank account and persons who are required by or under an enactment to give security for costs in respect of election petition proceedings to make cash payments at the Mayor’s and City of London Court.
  • R 40 is amended to remove the requirement for personal attendance at Court Funds Office of persons claiming to be entitled to funds held in court where there is a question as to their entitlement or identity.

In force : 1 April 2010

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll