header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 September 2018
Issue: 7807 / Categories: Features , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Judicial line: 6 September 2018

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll