header-logo header-logo

03 June 2016
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Look, no notice

Notice of enforcement by an enforcement agent or bailiff under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 may be reduced by the court from seven clear days if satisfied it is likely that goods will otherwise be removed or disposed of. If reduced, what would be a suitable notice period? One minute? Indeed, what would be the purpose of any notice where that likelihood exists?

A court will need to be persuaded that the power to reduce the period of notice is necessary rather than merely convenient especially bearing in mind that the application will be without notice. In some cases, the evidence might well justify a reduction of the notice period to nil. In the absence of any rules of procedure to the contrary, the court’s discretion will include a power to attach conditions to the notice. For example, the reduction of the period of the notice to nil might be subject to a condition that the goods are to be secured under reg 16 or 17 but not removed for a fixed period or, given the possible implications of Art 8 of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll