header-logo header-logo

06 September 2018
Issue: 7807 / Categories: Features , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Judicial line: 6 September 2018

This week: attachment disobeyed; possession costs; questioning the expert; non-mol undertakings.

Attached & unpaid

Q Where an employer fails to make substantial deductions from a judgment debtor’s pay under an attachment of earnings order, does the judgment creditor have any direct redress against the employer if the prospects of recovery of the missed payments from the judgment debtor are non-existent or poor?

A Our opinion is that there is no direct remedy available against the employer except by way of punishment under s 23(2)(a) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. This creates an offence for failing to comply with the order and the strict position is that there is a separate commission of the offence for each ‘missed’ payment. The employer, often through its payroll officer, is liable to be dealt with by way of committal proceedings and can be fined and ordered to pay any sums deducted from the judgment debtor’s earnings for which the employer has not accounted.

In a fix

Q Fixed costs on entry of judgment seem to apply

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