A debt to be garnisheed was situated in England.
Held: ‘If the debt is situate, or in other words if it is properly recoverable, in this country, then it would be discharged by payment under an order of our Courts and the garnishee need have no fear of being required to pay it a second time; but if the debt is situate, that is properly recoverable, in a foreign country, then it is not discharged by payment in this country under an order of the Courts of this country, and the debtor may be called upon to pay it over again in the foreign country. There is no doubt as to the effect of payment made under a garnishee order here. It is clearly a discharge pro tanto of the debt . .There is a vital distinction between the facts of that case [Martin v Nadel] and the facts of the present case . . That was a debt situate in Berlin, being properly recoverable in Berlin. That was the debt sought to be garnished. Here the debt sought to be garnished was a debt situate in England being properly recoverable in England. In this case the debt can be properly discharged in England. In Martin v Nadel the debt could be properly discharged only in Berlin.
The Court will not make absolute a garnishee order where it will not operate to discharge the garnishee in whole or pro tanto from the debt; it will not expose him to the risk of having to pay the debt or part of it twice over. Scrutton LJ considered this to be ‘well established as a principle of discretion on which the Court acts’.
Judges:
Bankes LJ, Scrutton LJ
Citations:
[1923] 1 KB 673
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Martin v Nadel CA 17-May-1906
A garnishee order was sought in England against the London branch of a German bank to attach a balance owed to the judgment debtor by the Berlin branch of the bank.
Held: A garnishee order is of the nature of an execution, and is governed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183541
