§ Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "E":
- (1) No judgment or decree for a claim founded on a liability to which a limit is set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be enforced, except so far as it is for costs (or, in Scotland, expenses) if security for an amount not less than the said limit has been given, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, in respect of the liability or any other liability incurred on the same occasion and the court is of opinion that the security is satisfactory and is satisfied that the amount for which it was given or such part thereof as corresponds to the claim will be actually available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made.
- (2) For the purposes of this section—
- (a) any question whether the amount of any security is not less than any limit set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be decided as at the time at which the security is given;
- (b) where part only of the amount for which security has been given will be available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made that part shall not be taken to correspond to his claim if any other part may be available to a claimant in respect of a liability to which no limit is set as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
§ Sir F. Soskice
I feel a little troubled about some of the language of the new Clause. It may well be that I have misconceived its purport in feeling the doubt that I have. The new Clause says that a judgment or decree in certain classes of case to which the liability provisions apply is not to be enforced in certain circumstances. They are those where it is shown that adequate security 602 is available and the amount of that security will… be actually available to the person in whose favour the judgment or decree was given or made. …I should have thought that that did not leave the judgment holder in a satisfactory position. The words are "will be actually available", and I should have thought that a judgment holder would wish to know that he was in a position to enforce his judgment unless he had the money in hand. I should have thought that what is aimed at would be that the judgment is not to be enforced unless the court is satisfied that the amount has been actually paid over. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could satisfy me on that point.
§ Mr. Neave
We did have in mind a situation where a blocked currency, or something of that kind, was involved. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this Clause provides, that, apart from costs, the enforcement of a judgment will be restricted if security up to the limit of liability prescribed in the Bill has been given, whether in the United Kingdom or not, and if the court is satisfied that the appropriate proportion of it will be actually—and I stress that—available to the claimant for whom judgment is given.
We have to have in mind something like a blocked currency, though the likelihood of this arising is remote. I should have thought that there was sufficient protection.
§ Question put and agreed to.