header-logo header-logo

Judgments on judgments

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

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

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