header-logo header-logo

03 June 2016
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Look, no notice

Notice of enforcement by an enforcement agent or bailiff under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 may be reduced by the court from seven clear days if satisfied it is likely that goods will otherwise be removed or disposed of. If reduced, what would be a suitable notice period? One minute? Indeed, what would be the purpose of any notice where that likelihood exists?

A court will need to be persuaded that the power to reduce the period of notice is necessary rather than merely convenient especially bearing in mind that the application will be without notice. In some cases, the evidence might well justify a reduction of the notice period to nil. In the absence of any rules of procedure to the contrary, the court’s discretion will include a power to attach conditions to the notice. For example, the reduction of the period of the notice to nil might be subject to a condition that the goods are to be secured under reg 16 or 17 but not removed for a fixed period

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