header-logo header-logo

19 May 2011
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

No surprise, no surprise

I do not understand how FPR rule 33.3(2)(b) will work...

I do not understand how FPR rule 33.3(2)(b) will work (court to make such order for enforcement as it considers appropriate). Surely the benefit of the surprise of an ex parte order will be lost?

If the creditor wishes to “surprise” the debtor and prevent him from frustrating enforcement before the court makes any enforcement order, they can apply without notice in the usual way for say an interim charging or third party debt order. If an application is made under rule 33.3(2)(b) then the combination of the FPR and CPR rule 71.2 means that the court will list what used to be called an oral examination at their local court and the debtor will be directed to take to court the documents that are specified. The creditor may well wish to provide a draft list for the court’s consideration. The process has its advantages and its disadvantages. It may be more welcomed by creditors acting in person.
 

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

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll