Amsalem (t/a MRE Building Contractors) v Raivid & Anor [2008] EWHC 3226 (TCC) (19 December 2008)

Amsalem (t/a MRE Building Contractors) v Raivid & Anor [2008] EWHC 3226 (TCC) (19 December 2008)

The court refused to extend the 14-day period for payment because there was no realistic prospect of the defendants being able to pay substantial sums within the foreseeable future, and no grounds for exercising discretion to interfere with the claimant's statutory enforcement rights.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3226 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Yoram Amsalem trading as MRE Building Contractors; Defendant: Hugh Mark Raivid; Defendant: Marsha Raivid
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Time for Payment of Money Judgment / Post Judgment Enforcement
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Payment, Discretion of Court, Enforcement Options, Financial Hardship
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Extension of Time for Payment Discretion of Court Enforcement Options Financial Hardship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yoram Amsalem trading as MRE Building Contractors

Claimant

Hugh Mark Raivid

Defendant

Marsha Raivid

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Extend Time for Payment of Money Judgment / Post Judgment Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the 14-day period for payment of a money judgment
  2. 2 Whether payment by instalments or other relief should be granted due to financial hardship

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend the 14-day period for payment because there was no realistic prospect of the defendants being able to pay substantial sums within the foreseeable future, and no grounds for exercising discretion to interfere with the claimant's statutory enforcement rights.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No extension of time for payment granted
  • Defendants must comply with original judgment and payment schedule