Obtaining information about judgment debtors under CPR 71

Oral examination of judgment debtors under CPR 71

Enforcing a judgment or order can be a long, expensive and sometimes uncertain process. The more the judgment creditor knows about the judgment debtor and their assets, the more effectively they can target enforcement. This can be achieved through an order to attend for questioning under CPR 71, also known as an oral examination.

The court can order the judgment debtor (or an officer of a corporate judgment debtor) to attend court at a specific time and place in order to provide information and documentation on oath about their means. The examination will take place before either a court officer or a judge.

If a person

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Jurisdictional challenges from abroad and the duty of full and frank disclosure (Okuashvili and others v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco and others)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Okuashvili v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco, the High Court heard a complex jurisdictional challenge in respect of two separate sets of proceedings brought against various individuals and companies located in or with a nexus to Georgia. The judgment, which resulted in the court ultimately declining jurisdiction over almost all of the claims against all but one defendant, provides a helpful summary of the law applicable to the granting of permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and CPR 6.37. It also serves as a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure which arises in the context of without notice applications such as an application for permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction, and of the factors the court will take into consideration when determining whether or not there has been valid service out of the jurisdiction. Written by Emily Lodge, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

UKSC and JCPC publish final year of 2023-2026 business plan

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) have published the final year of their three-year business plan for 2023-2026. The plan focuses on five strategic priorities and reports the successful completion of their Change Programme, which includes the launch of a new digital case management portal and the creation of new websites for the Supreme Court and the JCPC.

Council establishes a compelling need for an injunction against Persons Unknown to prevent trespass and nuisance (The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Snell and others)

Local Government analysis: This case involved the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) and several defendants, including individuals living on boats on the River Lea and separate structures on the embankment owned by the Council. The land in question is part of the Meridian Water Regeneration Project (‘Regeneration Project), a significant development initiative aimed at constructing approximately 10,000 residential homes, commercial premises and infrastructure improvements. The Council sought an injunction to prevent the unauthorised moorings and occupation of its land so as to be able to proceed with the Regeneration Project. In the High Court, Deputy Judge Jason Beer KC granted the final injunction, emphasising the compelling justification for preventing unauthorised moorings that obstructed essential infrastructure works. Written by Clive Adams, partner at Birketts LLP.

‘Half the truth is often a great lie’—Benjamin Franklin (Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd)

Commercial analysis: A case brought to the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s decision on the scope of fiduciary duty, informed consent and dishonesty. The court clarified that agents must fully disclose commissions (including the amount and method of funding) to avoid breaching fiduciary duties. Engie Power could only be liable as an accessory if dishonest and the court found the limitation period began when commission was paid, not when the contract was signed. The appeal was allowed in part. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News