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

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