Opinion:Will the proposed changes to the enforcement of court judgments really make a difference?

Is there an issue with the enforcement of court judgments?

According to the report and the individuals consulted, yes. Concerns included substantial delays at various stages of the enforcement process, from scheduling hearings and issuing court orders to the time taken to instruct bailiffs. The existence of a “two-tier” system between the County Court and High Court was also cited as problematic.

From our experience, enforcement is often not considered early enough. It’s a crucial part of any litigation strategy and, as the report suggests, can be both time-consuming and costly. Factoring it in earlier can help mitigate these challenges.

What does the report suggest?

Several key proposals include:

• A single unified digital court to handle the enforcement of judgments, regardless of the court where the judgment was obtained. This would also record debts, including those “outside the courts.”
• Reform of CPR Part 71, which currently requires judgment debtors to attend court to provide information to assist with enforcement. The report suggests that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee consider whether this provision should be removed from the CPR.
• Other procedural reforms to the CPR and court forms.

At the heart of the report is the recommendation to establish a single, digital enforcement court. This would consolidate the County Court and High Court enforcement systems into a streamlined portal. The proposed platform would, in theory, centralise debtor information, track enforcement actions, and improve transparency for all parties involved, although it is far from clear how this would work in practice.

The recommendations aim to reduce delays, simplify procedures, and ensure enforcement is not a drawn-out process. There is also an emphasis on early engagement with debtors and encouraging resolution before enforcement becomes necessary.

Will these proposals revolutionise enforcement?

My colleagues and I typically deal with high-value enforcement in the High Court and regularly implement enforcement strategies. If adopted, the recommendations would certainly have merit in making these strategies easier to plan. However, I see a number of issues.

First, what about debtors who actively avoid enforcement? The recommendations offer no new solutions here, and this problem is likely to persist.

Second, the proposals are largely domestic in focus, offering little clarity on how enforcement will work against international debtors. Many of our clients are either internationally based with assets abroad or are dealing with opponents who are also internationally based. If an opponent is deliberately avoiding enforcement across borders, the complexity increases significantly.

Third, the removal of CPR 71 could be detrimental to those who need to enforce a court judgment.  Whilst CPR 71 is not an enforcement method in itself, it can be a very useful tool as it requires a judgment debtor to provide information which can, in turn, open up enforcement options.

Final thoughts

Enforcement is too often considered late in the litigation process. It should never be an afterthought and needs to be addressed early on. A centralised court and register of debts may help streamline the enforcement process, at least for domestic matters. However, it is difficult to see how this would work on a practical level when dealing with an evasive debtor and for international or complex matters.

My colleagues and I have extensive experience in enforcement and recently wrote about why we are seeing an increasing trend in work relating to the enforcement of awards here: Why are we seeing an increasing trend in work relating to the enforcement of awards?

If you’re facing enforcement challenges and/or considering legal proceedings,  get in touch with the Disputes team, we’re here to help.