Amsalem (t/a MRE Building Contractors) v Raivid & Anor

The court may alter the ordinary 14-day period for complying with a money judgment and may order payment by instalments. In exercising that discretion, it may consider factors relevant to enforcement. The judgment creditor’s statutory enforcement rights should be interfered with only exceptionally. Where the debtor has no realistic prospect of making substantial payment within the foreseeable future, financial hardship and sympathy alone will not justify extending time or imposing instalments.

The defendants applied for an extension of the ordinary 14-day period for payment of a judgment debt, or for payment by instalments. The application followed a substantive judgment in favour of the claimant for approximately £193,000, together with interest and costs, including an interim costs payment of £100,000.

The defendants produced evidence of severe financial difficulty, including little or no available equity in their properties and expenditure matching or exceeding income. The central issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion, having regard to the defendants’ circumstances and the claimant’s enforcement rights.

1. The application was refused. The court declined to extend the 14-day compliance period or order payment by instalments.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 40.11, the court has discretion to specify a different compliance date for a money judgment, including payment by instalments.
3. The court granting judgment may take into account factors similar to those considered by a court dealing with enforcement. Nevertheless, the court should interfere with rights given to a judgment creditor by Parliament only in an exceptional case.
4. The defendants’ financial evidence showed no realistic prospect of substantial payment in the next few weeks or months. Even if the matter were considered in the context of execution, there was little practical assistance the court could provide.
5. The court left open whether a charge recently placed over one property had been made in good faith and whether any equity remained. It made no finding of illegality or dishonesty.
6. The claimant remained entitled to use the available enforcement procedures, although the court expressed the hope that the parties would resolve the matter without bankruptcy.