header-logo header-logo

No surprise, no surprise

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll