header-logo header-logo

Radical proposals for solving recovery

16 April 2025
Issue: 8113 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Enforcement of debt recovery through the courts ‘does not work’ and ‘adds unnecessary complexities’, a Civil Justice Council (CJC) working group has concluded in a ground-breaking report.

The CJC Enforcement Working Group’s final report recommends creating a ‘single unified digital court for enforcement of judgments’ obtained in the High Court and the county court.

This approach would have ‘the benefit of a portal retaining information about the defendant’s financial position and dealing with all the debts relating to one individual or party—including those outside the court process’.

The CJC group, led by Judge Karen Walden-Smith, considered switching from using the courts to enforce debt recovery to an administrative or judicial officer model, but found ‘no particular appetite’ for this. Similarly, it considered but opted against simply providing more funds for the county court or transferring county court enforcement to the High Court.

The report, published last week, follows a 12-week consultation which uncovered widespread concerns that the court system for enforcement is ‘slow, ineffective, underfunded, and hard to use and “near impossible” for someone navigating the system without assistance’, uses ‘arcane’ systems and ‘prehistoric’ forms and is ‘labyrinthine’.

It notes that ‘enforcement of judgments in general is currently performing poorly, with judgment creditors frustrated by delays and ineffectiveness of a disjointed approach, and judgment debtors concerned about the costs incurred in the process of enforcement and the inability to pay—particularly in the continuing cost of living crisis’.

The working group makes several suggestions on service, process and fees—for example, many defendants are unaware of the proceedings until judgment in default is entered and appears in a credit rating check (about 60% of judgments are default). It recommends reducing the fee for an application to set aside a county court judgment from £303 to £123.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, and chair of the CJC, said: ‘For too long, civil enforcement processes in England and Wales have been overly complex and unwieldy.

‘There is an obvious need for rationalisation and modernisation, but it is a subject that has perhaps always been placed in the “too-difficult box”.’

Issue: 8113 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll