Taking control of goods

What is taking control of goods?

The current procedure for taking control of a judgment debtor's goods in order to sell them and apply the sale proceeds in discharge of the judgment debt is that set out in section 62 and Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) which came into force in April 2014.

This regime of taking control of goods (TCG) replaced the old system of execution against goods (known as writs of fieri facias and warrants of execution).

Taking control of goods is a procedure for enforcing judgment debts but is also relevant for landlords seeking to recover arrears of commercial rent (commercial rent arrears recovery, aka CRAR), with the legislative framework including additional specific provisions for CRAR. For practical guidance specific to CRAR, see Practice Note: Commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR).

Preliminary considerations

Questions regarding the enforcement of a money judgment are considered in Practice Note: Enforcing a money judgment—High Court or County Court?. This Practice Note provides guidance on differences

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