{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast","title":"Enforcement of financial remedy orders","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":3441,"description":"This is the start of a series into enforcing orders; this part focuses on enforcing financial remedy orders. We are joined by Christopher Stirling (Field Court Chambers) and Kara Swift (Family Law in Partnership) who breathe life into this topic. Chris starts with telling us that recitals that deal with the payment of money are enforceable: Austin v Haynes [2021] EWCA Civ 1919 per Moylan LJ. However, be careful about how you are drafting the recital to make sure that they are not conditional or incapable of definition.   In respect of property adjustment orders, Chris reminds us that they take effect immediately in equity once DA/Final Order is made: Mountenay v Treharne [2003] Ch 135.  He also reminds us of the ability of the Court at the time of the final hearing to provide for deadlines for executing documents in default of which an application can be made ex parte to direct that a conveyancing solicitor or Judge should sign in the place of the defaulting party.  Kara then reminds us that orders for sale pursuant to S.24A of the MCA allows for orders for sale to be made at any time on or after the making of a financial remedy order making it useful standalone relief.  She reminds us that a lump sum is a simple debt.  It doesn’t take priority over any other debt, unless it is supported by a default order for sale.  Kara and Chris move on to discuss charging orders.  Note, there are no formal time limits for making charging order – see Lowsley v Forbes [1999] 1 AC 329 – though any interest claimed on sums charged is limited to 6 years – s.24(1) LA 1980 – nor is there need to seek any permission after 6 years like some other forms of execution: see Frankl-Rietti v Cheltenham & Gloucester plc [2011] EWCA Civ 524 per Rimer LJ @ [21] – and once obtained have an indefinite “shelf life” – CA refused to set aside charging order made 16 years previously in Yorkshire Bank Finance v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 1156 They are made via a 2 stage process – interim and final order...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/6KLL2IpaFH3iBShZ7ocYn8lY8fxSACTIJV16OjWXP6U/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9zaG93/LzE5Mjc0LzE2MTcy/NzQ4OTQtYXJ0d29y/ay5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}