Methods of enforcement

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 offer two routes to enforcement:

•
an application may be made to the court for a specific method of enforcement, or
•
an application may be made for such method of enforcement as the court considers appropriate

See Practice Note: Enforcement of financial orders.

In most cases, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 (CPR), as modified by FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 33, apply to enforcement in family proceedings. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 37 applies in relation to applications and proceedings in relation to contempt of court and FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pts 39 and 40, together with FPR 2010, PD 40A, apply in relation to attachment of earnings, charging orders, stop orders and stop notices.

Standard orders in relation to enforcement have been issued as part of the standard orders project initiated by the President of the Family Division, see Practice Notes: Standard orders—enforcement and Standard orders—committal.

Attachment of earnings

An attachment of earnings order is only of use where the debtor is employed. On an application

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.