Introduction to enforcement

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

How to approach enforcement

Enforcement is not something that should be considered only once a judgment or order has been obtained from the court. Instead, it should feature at the outset of initial investigation of a claim since it may dictate whom you sue, where, how and for what remedy.

For further guidance on the need to know your defendant and the tools available for obtaining information about your judgment debtor post judgment, see Practice Note: Successful enforcement—knowing your defendant.

We also provide a Checklist of considerations relevant when bringing a claim to an end: Ending a claim—checklist.

Which enforcement method to choose?

There are many methods of enforcement available under the CPR. The key to successful enforcement of a judgment is choosing the most appropriate method of enforcement. This will depend on the nature of the judgment,

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—12 February 2026

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights brings you the latest updates to the Civil Procedure Rules together with important procedural and costs developments. We include regulatory changes affecting the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and analyse recent decisions on interim payments in complex brain injury claims and alleged fraud in road traffic litigation. We also consider robust case management in multi-party sports injury claims, the recoverability of replacement services in fatal accident cases, the admissibility of surveillance evidence in high-value neurological disputes, substantial security for costs against an overseas claimant and employer liability in workplace slip claims.. We also feature our specialised Quantum Database and case submission Portal. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other news, cases, webinars and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Without notice orders under the Chabra jurisdiction and the gateways for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction (Gilbert v Broadoak)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerns a worldwide freezing order (WFO) which had been obtained on a without notice basis as against two overseas third parties under the Chabra jurisdiction. At the return hearing, the freezing order was discharged by the High Court, on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondents. The judge held that none of the jurisdictional gateways within CPR PD 6B, para 3.1 applied. As such, and even though there was evidence to the effect that there was a risk of dissipation of funds, the lack of jurisdiction was decisive and led to the discharge of the WFO. The court also considered that there were breaches of the duty of fair presentation at the without notice hearing, but that these were not sufficient in themselves to justify discharging and not continuing (or reimposing) the order. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction), Capita.

Where an interim payment application in respect of a brain injury collides with asylum claims and allegations of contributory negligence (SRN v Nekiwala and another)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Following a pedestrian RTA leaving him with orthopaedic fractures, a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), cognitive impairments and psychiatric consequences, the claimant sought further interim payments in the sum of £160,000 to fund ongoing treatment needs, especially a trial of independent living (TIL). Contributory negligence and quantum both remained in issue. The High Court evaluated that ‘a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment’ in respect of past losses would be around 50% of past loss and PSLA, allowing £73,000 (less the £13,500 already paid). While this award fell short of a ‘high proportion’, Master Fontaine felt it appropriate to reflect the significant uncertainties in the case. The Master’s conservative evaluation of the likely trial award excluded the cost of a TIL from the neuro-rehabilitative sum anticipated as necessary; absorbed the risk that the claimant would be deported following failure of his asylum claim; and was discounted by half given the defendants’ allegations of contributory negligence. Written by Lionel Stride, barrister, Temple Garden Chambers (TGC).

193rd Practice Direction update—in force various dates

The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have approved the 193rd Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claims

Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of