header-logo header-logo

One fee only

14 August 2015
Issue: 7665 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

I am confused by the FPR 33.3 procedure for applying for such means of enforcement as the court may consider appropriate where there has been default under an order. The D50K application form states: “If you are applying for a specific method of enforcement you should complete the appropriate application form and pay the relevant fee for that application.” Some hearing centres interpret that as meaning that the court should not make an enforcement order following a D50K without a further application and fee. However, the Red Book suggests the contrary. What is the correct position?

The majority view of the team is that on an application under FPR 33.3(2) (b) the court may make such order for enforcement as it considers appropriate (other than committal on judgment summons) and that a separate application is not required unless a specific form of order is then being sought without a consideration under r 33.2(2)(b). That is what the notes to the D50K are seeking to explain although they have led to some court centres requiring

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll