Most people have at some time engaged in a spot of home decorating, or 'do-it-yourself' activity.

It is rewarding to plane, or sand down, a piece of rough timber, converting something unsightly into an attractive artefact.

Having achieved a good result, there is understandable temptation to smooth one's hand along the finished work, so as to enjoy the perceived feeling of silk.

Hidden though, may be a splinter, which penetrates the finger, causing a degree of discomfort for a few days until the wound clears up, and is forgotten.

Unless, of course the injury occurred in the course of employment, in which case one is disabled for quite a while.The Register of County Court Judgments Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No 1807) is such a splinter, but in many ways more dangerous, for it has similarity to the wound that goes septic -- its effects staying with the affected person for the remainder of his or her life.

Often nothing is known of the disability until some years later when credit is sought, perhaps to purchase a house or car, and the proposed lender's initial gushing enthusiasm converts to disdain and rejection.A court officer -- formerly proper officer -- of every county court is required to transmit to the keeper of the register a return of every judgment entered in a county court for a sum of money, save for judgments made in family proceedings; orders made under s.112A of the County Courts Act 1984 (Administration Orders); specified excluded judgments, which include judgments for a sum of money after a contested hearing, unless payment by instalments is ordered, enforcement proceedings are taken, a request is made for the oral examination of the debtor, or an application is made for the debt to be paid by instalments.

The register is a worthwhile tool in ensuring bad payers are identified, so when credit is sought a value judgment can be for med as to whether the risk should be accepted.Tomlin orders are not judgments, so are not subject to registration, and if used imaginatively could result in avoidance of the effects of registration, but money judgments are orders where a person or body is required by the court to pay a sum of money to another, and it tends to be overlooked, or possibly not even realised, that costs orders are as much money judgments as orders for payment of damages or debt, and so are susceptible to registration.

Recent changes in relation to the procedure for quantifying costs of interim hearings will in the future cause a great deal of trouble for a number of people completely unaware a judgment had been entered against them.Since February 1999, the costs of interim hearings have been routinely assessed at conclusion of the hearing, by a process of summary assessment.

And not unexpectedly many, possibly most, applications have concluded with agreement between the parties on the form of order, including the amount of costs to be paid.

It is common for faxed letters to be sent to the court by both parties on the day of the hearing.

But more frequently than may be realised the person against whom the order is sought neither attends court nor sends a letter.

The applicant is able to report the order is no longer required, although costs are, so these are assessed.

In neither situation are the proceedings 'contested', a point of considerable significance as regards registration of judgments.The regulations exempt a number of judgments from registration, and these are specified in regulation 5.Registration of County Court Judgments Regulations 1985, regulation 5Paragraph (2) applies to any case where after a contested hearing judgment is given or an order is made:(a) for the payment of money otherwise than by instalments; or(b) for the payment of money (whether or not by instalments) and the judgment includes and order for costs to be taxed.In a case to which this paragraph applies a judgment shall be exempt from registration until:(a) the judgment creditor takes steps to enforce the judgment;(b) a request is made for the oral examination of the judgment debtor; or(c) an application is made for the payment of the money by instalments.And in a case to which paragraphs (1)(b) applies the judgment shall also be exempt from registration until such time as the costs are taxed.There are an additional three paragraphs to regulation 5, but only (4) is relevant to the purpose of this article, for it defines what is meant by a contested hearing:(4) For the purposes of this regulation 'contested hearing' means a hearing at which the defendant attends and disputes liability for the whole or part of the amount claimed.If a party attends a hearing, and disputes the order being sought, but nonetheless has an order made against her or him, because the proceedings have been contested, the order is exempt from registration at that stage, unless an instalment order is made.Judgment debts, once registered, remain on the register until the end of the relevant calendar year on expiration of six years from the date of the judgment (regulation 9).

Long enough in itself, and in that time every credit agency in the country will have been able to add the details to whatever information they already hold.

But even if they choose not to check the register on a routine basis, it will certainly be referred to on application for credit being made, with every possibility of credit being refused, or sold at a higher price.Since inception of the summary as sessment procedure many hundreds, possibly thousands, of costs orders have been made, and will have qualified for registration, but while it is sensible and wholly appropriate for there to be a public record of those who do not pay trade and personal debts, it is not inevitable that people who have costs ordered against them are in the same category.The situation can perhaps be illustrated by taking the example of Mr D, who several years ago was involved in a road traffic accident, the driver of the other vehicle, Mr C, being injured.

Mr D informed his insurers, who took the matter over, and after a while the incident faded from his mind, and was eventually forgotten.Not so Mr C, for he instructed solicitors to obtain damages.

Negotiations took place, but settlement was not achieved, so proceedings were issued, and at some interim stage an application was made, resulting not in an order for what was originally demanded, but in agreement that there was to be no order save that the defendant pay the claimant's costs.

These also were agreed, but instead of having the foresight to deal with the matter by way of a Tomlin order, one in customary form was made.

The circumstances as described were such that the order was not made after a contested hearing.Because of rule 44.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Mr D ought to have been given notice of the costs order made by the solicitors ostensibly acting for him, together with an explanation of the reason for the order.

But it may just be possible that they, having been instructed by the insurance company could overlook this requirement, arguably unprofessional conduct in itself, but paling into insignificance in relation to the damage they have unthinkingly allowed to be done to their lay client.Two or three years later, Mr D may decide to move house, and want a mortgage.

The effusive manner of the staff at the bank or building society is likely to become concern and regret once it is ascertained Mr D has a county court judgment registered against him.

If the insurance company solicitors, on paying the costs, had taken steps to obtain a certificate of satisfaction, that may help a little, but in any event it may not be unrealistic to suspect this will not always be done.Mr D will be entirely justified in concluding the solicitors were to blame for his predicament, which could be his inability to move as he hoped; although whether he will be able to launch an action against them in negligence is an entirely different matter.It will not only be defendants affected in this way, for claimants also have costs orders made against them, and it is not unknown for the reason for the application being issued to be a failure by the solicitor to take a particular step in the proceedings, rather than the lay client defaulting.Practitioners ought to have ensured consent orders for costs were not made, orders in default not made, and that if agreement was achieved, the matter was dealt with by a Tomlin order.

Failing to have taken this elementary step would be at the very least, unfortunate.Fortunately, the future may be brighter, for it is anticipated that on 26 July 1999, the Register of County Court Judgments (Amendment) Regulation 1999 will come into force.

These make a number of necessary amendments, substituting 'court officer' for 'proper officer', and 'assessed by way of detailed assessment' in the place of 'taxed'.More important is that regulation 5 is enlarged to include as paragraph 3(A) an additional category of order for payment of money exempt from registration:3A) An ord er for a sum of money to be paid as costs following a summary assessment within the meaning of rule 43.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, other than one made on the final decision of the court in a claim, shall be exempt from registration.This should have the effect of solving the problem as regards orders for costs made on or after 26 July 1999, but not those made before.Any practitioner who has permitted a registrable order against his client to be made, ought perhaps to hope the court staff have been so busy trying to keep up with the new procedures, they have forgotten to send details of costs orders to the Registry Trust.

However, they will have to deal with the matter eventually.Although costs orders made at interim stages in proceedings will no longer be subject to registration, receiving parties are of course in no way inhibited as to the steps they take to enforce payment, which range from applications for attachment of earning orders, to embarking on the road to obtain a bankruptcy order by serving a statutory demand, something the debtor, particularly if a claimant, may find less than helpful if he or she wishes to continue with the claim.Just possibly someone who has read this article was involved in a road traffic accident three or four years ago, sensibly informed the insurers, and left the matter to them .

.

.