header-logo header-logo

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

One fee only

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
back-to-top-scroll