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

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
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
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
back-to-top-scroll