Brereton v Edwards: 1888

Money in the control of the Court may be the subject of execution with the leave of the Court. The Judgments Acts did not apply to money held in Court. Lord Esher MR said: ‘section 14 does not apply to money . . it applies only to Government stock, funds or annuities, and stock or shares in a company.’ As to Haly v Barry, ‘That decision seems to me to amount to this, that the order nisi is the charging order, but that it stands in abeyance until it is made absolute. When, however, it is made absolute the order nisi is the charging order, and it takes effect from the date when it was originally made. The result of this is, that the plaintiffs’ charging order is prior in date to the order for payment to the guardians.’


Lord Esher MR


[1888] 21 QBD 488


England and Wales


CitedHaly v Barry CA 1868
A judgment creditor had obtained a charging order nisi but before it was made absolute a decree was made for the administration of the debtor’s estate. An injunction was sought in order to restrain further proceedings by the judgment creditor, but . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead CA 19-Apr-2000
A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.415920