header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Commencement No 8) Order 2012 (SI 2012/1312)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
22 May 2012
Issue: 7514 / Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

The Order brings into force the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, ss 93, 94.
Enabling Power
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s 148(5)

Summary

Purpose

Both provisions amend the Charging Orders Act 1979 (the 1979 Act).

What’s Changing?

Section 93 is brought into force on 1 October 2012. It amends the 1979 Act so that where a debtor is required by a county court or High Court order to pay a sum by instalments, a charging order may be made even though there has been no default in payment, but:

  • the court must take the fact there has been no default into account in deciding whether to make the order; and
  • an order for sale to enforce the charging order may in any event not be made where there has been no default in payment.

Section 94 is brought into force on 17 May

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
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
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
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
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
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
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
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'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
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
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll