header-logo header-logo

01 December 2017
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Features , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Judicial line: 1 December 2017

Judicial Q&A: challenge route; goods without cash; too much court; mortgage release doubts; who decides on committal?

Presently aggrieved

Q Can the court ever entertain an application to set aside its order on the application of a party who was present at the hearing at which the order was made (insolvency reviews apart) or is an appeal the only route of challenge?

A Yes, the court can entertain but only in very limited circumstances. The applicant would have to establish that they had a real prospect of showing that the court at the original hearing had been misled by the respondent party or that there had been a material change in circumstances since the original hearing.

Today or tomorrow?

Q Where the court orders a return of goods in favour of a claimant who also seeks a money judgment, is there any bar to the money judgment being given at the same time or should that relief be adjourned over with a view to being dealt with after sale of the repossessed property? Is

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll