A judgment in rem upholds a right as against the whole world.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the application of section 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 with specific reference to the accrual of interest on costs, which are ordered to be subject to detailed assessment. The act states that no arrears of interest can be recovered after the expiration of a six-year period from the date on which the interest became due. It was found that, in this context, ‘due’ meant ‘payable’ and that the costs could not be deemed to be ‘payable’ until such time that the costs had been assessed and were enforceable. Written by Claire Kretzmann, costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Reconsideration of a judgment The tribunal has a mechanism, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, for dealing with the situation where a respondent either does not wish to contest a claim against it, or fails to put in a response to it that is valid under the rules. For information on that mechanism, see Practice Note: No response, rejected response or claim not contested: employment tribunals. If the respondent wants to apply for reconsideration of a rule 21 judgment, it may do so under the ‘Reconsideration of Judgments’ procedure set out in rule 70–rule 73. For

Ireland—Dispute Resolution analysis: This case analysis discusses the divergence in approaches taken by different High Court judges in respect of the court’s entitlement to insert terms into the court order which is made when a personal injuries case settles (‘Personal Injury Settlement Orders’) in respect of recoverable benefits. Parties often agree to include wording in Personal Injury Settlement Orders to the effect that ‘no claim for loss of earnings was made’. In those circumstances, the defendant (often an insurance company) is then not liable to reimburse the Department of Social Protection for payments made to a claimant by the Department in respect of social welfare benefits paid because of a personal injury. Otherwise, the defendant would be liable to reimburse the Department under the relevant legislative provisions in respect of the RBA which are contained within sections 13 and 14 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013 (Ireland) (SWAPA 2013 (IRL)). SWAPA 2013 (IRL), s 13 inserts Part 11B in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (Ireland) (SWCA 2005 (IRL)) and SWAPA 2013 (IRL), s 14 makes some consequential amendments to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (Ireland). Notwithstanding the uncertainty in the High Court regarding the law applicable to Personal Injury Settlement Orders, there has been no clarification from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court as to which approach is correct. Written by Róisín Haughey, barrister-at-Law, Law Library, Four Courts, Dublin 7.

This Practice Note sets out the requirements and procedure in relation to the use of a judgment summons as a method of enforcing an order made in family proceedings, including human rights considerations. Where a debtor has the means to pay the debt and refuses or neglects to do so, the court may consider making a committal order. A judgment summons is a summons made pursuant to the Debtors Act 1869 (DA 1869). It requires a debtor to appear in court. As long as the debtor has, or has had, the means to pay and refuses or neglects to do so, the court may commit the debtor to prison for a maximum period of six weeks. The procedural steps must be strictly followed. In Prest v Prest, the Court of Appeal held that the burden of proof is to the criminal standard and that the debtor cannot be compelled to give evidence (see also Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 33.14(4)). The purpose of an order for committal under a judgment summons is to seek to procure

In practice, “judgment‑proof” describes a defendant or debtor from whom a money judgment is unlikely to be recovered because they have no reachable assets or income, or because assets are protected, concealed, or outside effective enforcement. It is a descriptive, non‑technical term (not defined in legislation or case law) used across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland in litigation risk analysis and enforcement strategy.Typical reasons include impecuniosity or insolvency/bankruptcy (sequestration in Scotland), the use of limited‑liability structures or asset‑holding vehicles, assets located offshore, prior security interests, exempt or non‑attachable assets (e.g. basic household goods, tools of the trade, certain benefits or pensions), jointly held property complications, or negative equity. Being “judgment‑proof” is factual and fluid: it may change with asset discovery, insolvency events, or interim relief.Practical significance: it affects decisions on issuing proceedings, settlement, security for costs, ATE insurance, third‑party funding, and whether to seek freezing orders or information orders/examination of the debtor. Enforcement routes differ but the concept is consistent: England & Wales (writ/warrant of control, charging orders, third party debt orders, attachment of earnings, insolvency); Scotland (diligence such as arrestment, attachment, inhibition, earnings arrestment); Northern Ireland (Enforcement of Judgments Office mechanisms); Ireland (sheriff execution, instalment orders, judgment mortgage, bankruptcy). Limited circumstances exist for piercing the corporate veil; generally, limited liability can render an SPV effectively judgment‑proof absent guarantees or security.

This Practice Note deals with correcting accidental slips or omissions in judgments or orders under CPR 40.12, including the circumstances in which the rule can (and cannot) be used and how to make the application. What is the slip rule? The slip rule is a process by which the court may correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order (see: CPR 40.12, CPR PD 40B, para 4.1 and CPR PD 40B, para 4.5). CPR 40.12 provides that the ‘court may at any time correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order’. The expression ‘any time’ requires ‘no additional gloss or explanation’ and it means what it says: the power is not confined to extant orders (IC v RC—note this is a family case but the court was considering an identical provision to CPR 40.12 in the Family Procedure Rules). The slip rule only covers genuine slips or omissions—the rule specifies ‘accidental’—in the wording of a sealed court order or handed down judgment.

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of CPR 3.3. Additional provisions in relation to specific courts may also be relevant—see: Court specific guidance. Court’s power to make orders on its own initiative—CPR 3.3 The court has the power under CPR 3.3 to make an order on its own initiative (save for where a rule or some other enactment provides otherwise). Where the court chooses to do so: • parties likely to be affected by the order may be given the opportunity to make representations. If so, the court must specify the time and manner in which such representations must be made (CPR 3.3(2)) • the court may decide to hold a hearing to decide whether or not to make the order. In those cases, each party likely to be affected by the proposed order must be given at least three days' notice of that hearing (CPR 3.3(3)) • the court may decide to make an order on its own initiative without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity

This Practice Note defines the terms used for judgments and orders and looks at how to draft (or draw up) a judgment or order and the standard requirements for a judgment or order. It also considers whether a ‘consequentials’ hearing is needed and the time for payment and payment by instalments in money claims (debt claims) and orders for the execution of a deed or signing a document. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further: Court specific guidance. Definition of terms The distinction between the word ‘judgment’ and the word ‘order’ was explained in Onslow v Commissoners of Inland Revenue by reference to Ex p Chinery Onslow. A judgment is the final substantive decision made in a claim and an order is a binding decision made by a court in respect of an application. The distinction between ‘judgment’ and ‘order’ remains valid

This Practice Note sets out the requirements for serving an order, complying with an order and the interpretation of court orders. It also looks at the date from which a judgment or order takes effect. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to consider additional provisions—see further below. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach. For information on varying, amending or setting aside judgments and orders, see Practice Notes: • Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7) • Judgments and orders—correcting accidental errors under the slip rule (CPR 40.12) • Judgments and orders—setting aside • Amending judgments For information on drawing up orders, see Practice Note: Judgments and orders—drafting and formalities—Drawing up orders. Serving court orders Where a party has drawn up an order to be filed by the court, the party must file enough copies for all parties to be served (CPR 40.4(1)). Unless the court directs otherwise, orders made otherwise than at trial

This Practice Note considers what action may be taken on receipt of a judgment, including when you can apply to correct a judgment, revoke it, appeal it or apply to have it set aside on the grounds that the judgment was either made without jurisdiction or obtained by fraud. For general guidance on what happens after a judgment or order has been made, see Practice Note: Judgments and orders—service, compliance, interpretation. The need carefully to review all draft judgments and orders of the court As seen in Practice Note: Reserved judgments—purpose and restrictions, it is common for the judge to reserve the judgment and to circulate a copy of it in draft, prior to it being handed down. It is important to carefully review all judgments or orders of the court (as soon as received, whether in draft or not) for the following reasons: • to identify and notify any errors to the judge’s clerk • to consider whether you may wish to apply for permission to appeal from the judge at handing down of the judgment

Judicial describes anything relating to judges, the courts, or the exercise of the judicial function of deciding disputes according to law. In practice, it is used to distinguish court‑based decisions and processes from “administrative”, “executive” or “legislative” acts. A judicial act typically involves an independent and impartial decision‑maker, application of legal principles to facts, and a binding determination of parties’ rights or liabilities. References to “judicial” commonly appear in terms such as judicial review, judicial discretion, judicial independence, judicial immunity, judicial office and judicial proceedings. Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, usage is broadly consistent, though specific statutory contexts differ. Legislation and case law in each jurisdiction use “judicial” descriptively rather than as a single, exhaustively defined concept, so its precise scope depends on the instrument or doctrine in which it appears. The classification of conduct as judicial rather than administrative can affect remedies (for example, availability of judicial review), appeal routes, procedural protections, liability of judges and other decision‑makers, and the application of privileges (such as absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings).