header-logo header-logo

14 August 2015
Issue: 7665 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

One fee only

I am confused by the FPR 33.3 procedure for applying for such means of enforcement as the court may consider appropriate where there has been default under an order. The D50K application form states: “If you are applying for a specific method of enforcement you should complete the appropriate application form and pay the relevant fee for that application.” Some hearing centres interpret that as meaning that the court should not make an enforcement order following a D50K without a further application and fee. However, the Red Book suggests the contrary. What is the correct position?

The majority view of the team is that on an application under FPR 33.3(2) (b) the court may make such order for enforcement as it considers appropriate (other than committal on judgment summons) and that a separate application is not required unless a specific form of order is then being sought without a consideration under r 33.2(2)(b). That is what the notes to the D50K are seeking to explain although they have led to some court centres requiring a further fee post-DK50K when one was not intended. However, on

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll