header-logo header-logo

Judicial line: 6 September 2018

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll