header-logo header-logo

No surprise, no surprise

19 May 2011
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

I do not understand how FPR rule 33.3(2)(b) will work...

I do not understand how FPR rule 33.3(2)(b) will work (court to make such order for enforcement as it considers appropriate). Surely the benefit of the surprise of an ex parte order will be lost?

If the creditor wishes to “surprise” the debtor and prevent him from frustrating enforcement before the court makes any enforcement order, they can apply without notice in the usual way for say an interim charging or third party debt order. If an application is made under rule 33.3(2)(b) then the combination of the FPR and CPR rule 71.2 means that the court will list what used to be called an oral examination at their local court and the debtor will be directed to take to court the documents that are specified. The creditor may well wish to provide a draft list for the court’s consideration. The process has its advantages and its disadvantages. It may be more welcomed by creditors acting in person.
 

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll