header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 May 2012
Issue: 7514 / Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

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

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

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
Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll