header-logo header-logo

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

Judgments on judgments

My understanding is that there is no time limit on the enforcement of a money judgment but that a fresh action based on a money judgment is subject to a six-year limitation period. Apart from securing interest on the judgment which would not otherwise be payable, I cannot conceive of any reason why the judgment creditor would wish to bring a fresh action. Is there one?

The Limitation Act 1980, s 24 bars an action to enforce a judgment which became enforceable more than six years previously. However, this bar relates only to enforcement by “a fresh action”; enforcement by way of a charging order, an attachment of earnings order or bankruptcy proceedings are not caught by s 24. The advantage is that, for example, where a judgment has not been satisfied after five years, the judgment creditor could issue a second claim based on the original judgment and thereby start the six-year clock for enforcement running afresh. This might be useful if the judgment debtor has gone missing or, as the first six years

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll