The court can make an order for the payment of a judgment by
instalments, payable in such amounts and at such times as
specified. If an order is made, it will stay enforcement of a
What will the Court weigh up?
Case law shows a number of considerations that the court will
look as to when an instalment order ought not to be made. These
where the judgment debtor's financial means are enough to
enable the judgment debt to be paid immediately;
if it is obvious that the judgment debtor would not be able to
comply with the instalment order;
if the time for payment is unreasonable;
if it would not result in a net reduction of the judgment debt
because of the amount of the interest that continues to run on the
if the judgment creditor would suffer hardship by the amount of
time it would take to pay the debt by instalments.
No one consideration is prevalent but must be weighed against
the others as a whole.
How long is too long?
Our experience is that 12 to 24 months is not an
'unreasonable' time period to pay a debt by instalments
however it would depend on the circumstances. In IceTV v
Duncan Ross & Ors, 27 months was not considered an
unreasonable period to pay a $50,000 debt by instalments. In
Hellier Capital Pty Ltd v Albarran  NSWSC
403, 4 years was allowed to pay off a debt of $1.6 million by
If the time period is not unreasonable, the debtor has capacity
to pay and it is evident that this is your best chance of getting
paid, don't object and wait to see if the debtor complies. It
is something you can closely monitor without expending further
legal costs. An instalment order can be varied or set aside by
application to the court if the debtor's financial
circumstances change (such as the debtor coming into a wind fall or
securing better or any employment.)
Alternatively, don't be hesitant to object to an instalment
order if it is obvious the debtor can afford to pay more or it
would take an unreasonable time to pay. The more grounds of
objection you have the more likely your chances of the instalment
order being rescinded.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This was an interlocutory decision about the appointment of a tutor for the child appellant, to carry on his proceedings.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).