Whether judgment could be enforced by third party debt order after six years

In Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport SDPR [2008] EWHC 801, Tomlinson J rejected an argument that, by analogy with authority on RSC Order 46, the grant of a third party debt order should be refused because more than six years had elapsed since the judgment was given. The judge said that there was a well established dichotomy between the rules applicable to writs of execution and those relating to third party debt orders. There was no authority for the proposed analogy and it ran counter to the scheme established in CPR 72. Absent compelling evidence of prejudice to the judgment debtor from the delay in enforcement, the court should regard the grant of third party debt relief as axiomatic.

Given that the dichotomy had existed without challenge for over 100 years, it was a bold attempt by the judgment debtor to argue for the analogy. The decision has clarified that the case for such an analogy does not exist.