Section 2 of the Charging Orders Act 1979 (COA 1979) provides the property that may be charged by way of a charging order. This includes

For the purposes of this Q&A we have limited our research to cover obtaining a charging order to secure a judgment debt. We have focussed on the situation where (a) the judgment debtor is only one of a number of individuals/entities who have a beneficial interest in the property to be charged and (b) the judgment debtor is also one of the trustees of the property. In conducting our research we have focussed on obtaining charging orders over property where the judgment debtor holds a beneficial interest alongside other beneficiaries. Section 1(1) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 (COA 1979), provides: ‘Where, under a judgment or order of the High Court [or the family court] or [the county court], a person (the “debtor”) is required to pay a sum of money to another person (the

Changes to procedure From 6 April 2016, the procedure for seeking an interim and final charging order changed, with amendments made to CPR 73 and CPR PD 73. The provisions of the Charging Orders Act 1979 (COA 1979) remain unchanged. The aim of the changes is to centralise the process for dealing with straightforward charging order applications via issue in the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC), with such applications being dealt with by a court officer and only referred for judicial consideration if requested. Similarly, the requirement for a hearing to determine the making of an interim charging order final is dispensed

This Q&A assumes the question is referring to obtaining a charging order over the judgment debtor’s place of residence (a narrow boat) with a view to then seeking an order for sale of it. This Q&A has focused on when the court will order charging orders and ultimately orders for sale. Final charging orders At the hearing for a final charging order, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether to make an interim charging order final. If the court makes the charging order final and the judgment debtor still does not satisfy the judgment or order, the judgment creditor can seek to enforce the charge by applying for an order for sale of

CPR 12 governs the procedure for default judgment. Default judgment means judgment without trial where a defendant has failed to file an acknowledgement of service or has failed to file a defence. Default judgment is available save in respect of specific exemptions, which include where the CPR 8 procedure is used (CPR 12.2) or where a practice direction provides that the claimant may not obtain default judgment. There are many reasons why a party may fail to file an acknowledgement of service or a defence. However it will be necessary before making an application for the claimant to have satisfied themselves that the proceedings have been properly served, as the court will seek confirmation

The requirements for a freezing order are set out in Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—guiding principles, these are: • the cause of action against the defendant must be in England and Wales • the claimant must have a good arguable case against the defendant • the existence of assets has to be demonstrated • there must be a real risk that judgment will go unsatisfied if injunctive relief is refused • it must be just and convenient to grant the injunction

Note: This Q&A assumes that the debtor is a member of a personal pension scheme under which they have the right to elect to take up to 25% of their pension pot as a tax-free cash lump sum at any time from the age of 55. When can you use third party debt orders—general A third party debt order (TPDO) is a method of enforcement by which a creditor may enforce a debt against money due and owing to the debtor by a third party who is within the jurisdiction. This includes money held in the debtor's name in a bank or building society or money owed to a self-employed debtor in the course of his trade. The court has a discretion whether to grant a TPDO and whether they do so will be dependant on the circumstances at the time of enforcement. For further guidance see: • What is a third party debt order (TPDO)? • How to apply for a third party debt order (TPDO) • When

The issue of whether CPR 71 can be used where a person is resident outside the jurisdiction has been considered by both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. The Court of Appeal in Union Bank of Finland Ltd v Lelakis, a decision decided under the precursor to CPR 71, held that when dealing with an order for examination of assets: ‘Service out of the jurisdiction of orders ancillary to execution after judgment, such as an order under RSC Ord 48, r 1 to attend before the court to be examined as to assets, was valid if the proceedings were appropriate for service of the writ out of the jurisdiction without leave, in that they complied with Ord 11, r 9(4). Order 11, r 9(4) was concerned with substance (ie the nature of the process) rather than mere form.’ The House of Lords in, the later decision of, Masri v Consolidated Contractors was specifically considering whether an

Non-party cost orders (NPCOs) against family members The first issue to consider is that while it is possible to obtain a non-party cost order (NPCO) against a funder, the courts distinguish between different types of funders being: • pure funders—someone with no direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation ie they will not benefit from it, are not funding it as a matter of business and are not seeking to control the course of the litigation • professional funders—someone who has a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation A family member falls within the pure funder category. The Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 2) held that pure funders are generally exempt from liability under section 51(3) of the Senior

In answering this Q&A we have limited our research to cover processes for obtaining post-judgment disclosure. We assume this Q&A is referring to disclosure of documents in the possession of the judgment debtor’s solicitors. In conducting our research we have focussed on any available post-judgment disclosure processes. CPR 71 The normal method to obtain disclosure of information after judgment is through an information under CPR 71. The judgment creditor can apply for an order to ascertain the existence, nature, extent and location of a judgment debtor's assets and thereby establish the most appropriate method or methods of enforcement. This part can also be used where a party has the benefit of a judgment or order, other than for money, and requires further information to enforce that judgment or order. The application is normally made against the debtor rather than a third party such as a conveyancing solicitors. Where documents are held by third parties they can often

An option to tax is exercised by ‘a person’. The option does not generally bind anyone else. The notification of an option must therefore contain enough information to identify the person exercising it. HMRC’s form VAT 1614A (notification of an option to tax) states that

Most cases involving animals straying onto the highway will be decided under the law of negligence. However, some cases have succeeded under The Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971). Where an accident occurs between a vehicle and a farm animal there can often be serious consequences; given the size and unpredictable nature of the animal involved. The following are examples of cases involving animals straying onto a highway as set out in our Lexis+® UK Personal Injury Practice Note: Road traffic accidents caused by obstacles in the road: • where it was foreseeable that a gate might be left open by walkers and, once open, it was likely that cattle would stray on to the highway, the owners of a dilapidated farm were liable