Charging orders

NOTE: with effect from 14 August 2023, the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC) and the County Court Business Centre (CCBC) are renamed as the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC)—see: LNB News 14/08/2023 12—CCMCC issues name and performance update.

Where do I find the rules relating to charging orders?

Charging orders can be a useful method of enforcing a judgment debt for money. They are a heavily procedural process and therefore there is a cost associated with them. They may also involve dealing with interests of persons other than a judgment debtor such as a co-owner of real property. That can add an extra level of complication and cost,

They are governed by the provisions of the Charging Orders Act 1979 (COA 1979), CPR 73 and its accompanying Practice Direction (CPR PD 73).

In addition to or, as an alternative to a charging order, a judgment creditor may also seek to protect their position in relation to any claimed entitlement to an interest in securities or funds in court by applying for a stop order or (in relation to securities only) a stop notice.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents