- Who does what in the enforcement process
- What must be true before you can enforce
- Finding out what the debtor has: examination
- Garnishee orders: attaching money owed to the debtor
- Writs for the levy of property: the Sheriff seizes assets
- Charging orders: security over shares, deposits and interests
- Bankruptcy and statutory demands: escalating the pressure
- Choosing between the mechanisms
- Where a lawyer helps
- Acting before the debtor does
Winning your case is only half the battle. When a NSW court hands down judgment for money, the losing party becomes a judgment debtor and you become a judgment creditor, but the judgment itself does not put the money in your account. It is a formal statement that the debt is owed. If the debtor does not pay voluntarily, you must take a separate set of steps, collectively called enforcement, to actually recover the amount.
NSW has a structured enforcement scheme, set out in Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (the CPA) and Part 39 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (the UCPR). The scheme gives a judgment creditor five main tools: examining the debtor about their finances, garnishee orders over money owed to the debtor, writs executed by the Sheriff, charging orders over particular assets, and, for larger debts, bankruptcy or winding up. Each tool has different triggers, costs and risks, and they can be combined. This article explains how the machinery works, so you can see which mechanism fits your situation and where the process commonly comes unstuck.
Who does what in the enforcement process
Enforcement is not something you do alone. Several actors play defined roles:
- You (the judgment creditor): you choose the mechanism, prepare the paperwork and pay the fees. The process only moves when you start it.
- The judgment debtor: the person or company bound by the judgment. They can pay, negotiate, apply to pay by instalments, or resist particular enforcement steps.
- The court and its registrars: they issue writs and orders and hear the applications that drive enforcement.
- The Sheriff: a state officer who physically enforces writs for the levy of property, by seizing and selling assets. The Sheriff charges a fee for the work.
- The garnishee: a third party who owes money to, or holds money for, the judgment debtor, such as an employer, a bank or a tenant. A garnishee order compels that third party to pay the debtor's money to you instead.
- AFSA, trustees and liquidators: the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) administers bankruptcy applications against individuals, while trustees and liquidators take control of assets in a bankruptcy or winding up.
The interests of the two central parties are directly opposed. You want the money now; the debtor usually wants to keep assets and income. Much of the enforcement scheme is designed to manage that conflict, for example by protecting a minimum amount of the debtor's income and property so they can keep living and working, while still letting you collect the rest.
What must be true before you can enforce
Enforcement starts with a final judgment or order for the payment of money, usually from the Local Court, District Court or Supreme Court. Before you take any step, three things are worth checking.
First, the judgment grows while it is unpaid. Under s 101 of the CPA, interest accrues on the unpaid amount from the date the judgment takes effect, at the prescribed rate. The rate is set by the rules at 6 percentage points above the Reserve Bank cash rate, reset every six months, which puts it in the double digits in 2026. No interest is payable if the judgment is paid in full within 28 days. Because the debt compounds, delay costs you, but it also gives the debtor time to move assets.
Second, there is a time limit. A judgment becomes "stale" after 12 years, and enforcement after that point requires the court's leave under s 134 of the CPA. Leave can also be needed in other situations, such as where the parties to the judgment have changed or the writ is against property in the hands of a receiver.
Third, the debtor may seek relief. A debtor can apply for an instalment order or an order allowing deferred payment under s 107 of the CPA, and while such an order is in force, execution of the judgment is stayed. A debtor who is genuinely trying to pay can slow the whole process down, which is why negotiation is often worth attempting before spending money on enforcement.
Finding out what the debtor has: examination
Before choosing a mechanism, you need to know what the debtor owns and earns. The scheme gives you two ways to find out, under s 108 of the CPA and Part 38 of the UCPR.
The first step is an examination notice, a written notice served on the judgment debtor requiring them to answer questions and produce documents about their financial position. The notice must give the debtor at least 28 days to comply. It is not filed with the court, so there is no filing fee, but it must be served in accordance with the service rules.
The second step is an examination order, which you apply for when the debtor does not respond adequately. The application must be supported by an affidavit confirming that the judgment remains unsatisfied and that the debtor was served with an examination notice but failed to comply. If the court makes the order, the debtor must attend court to be examined on oath and bring the requested documents. For a company, the order can be addressed to an officer or former officer, so a director cannot hide behind the corporate structure.
The examination is informal but it is not toothless. A debtor who fails to attend without lawful excuse can be arrested under a warrant issued under s 97 of the CPA. The information gathered here, including bank account details and the names of employers, drives everything that follows.
Garnishee orders: attaching money owed to the debtor
A garnishee order is an order directed at a third party, the garnishee, who owes money to the judgment debtor or holds money on their behalf. There are two variants: a garnishee order for debts, and a garnishee order for wages or salary, both created under Division 3 of Part 8 of the CPA.
The most common target is a bank account. Under s 117 of the CPA, a garnishee order attaches debts that are due or accruing from the garnishee to the debtor at the time the order is served on the garnishee, and money standing to the debtor's credit in a financial institution is expressly treated as a debt owed by the bank. The practical consequence is that the order captures the balance in the account on the day of service, but nothing deposited afterwards, so the order works best when the account has money in it and the debtor does not know it is coming. Garnishee applications can be dealt with in the absence of the parties, and the judgment debtor and the proposed garnishee do not need to be notified in advance.
A garnishee order over wages works differently. Under s 119 of the CPA, while the order is in force it attaches wages and salary payable to the debtor by the employer, so it operates as a continuing deduction from each pay packet until the judgment is satisfied. The employer pays the deducted amount directly to you, and may retain $13.00 from the debtor's wages to cover its expenses, an amount fixed by Schedule 3 of the UCPR.
Both variants protect a minimum amount for the debtor. Garnishee orders must not reduce the debtor's net weekly wage below a protected amount, and must not reduce a bank account balance below the same protected minimum. The amount is set by reference to a base figure of $447.70 that is adjusted over time under the indexation provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), so the current figure should be confirmed at the time you enforce. If the account balance is below the protected amount, the bank does not need to pay out.
If the garnishee ignores the order, you can apply to the court under s 124 of the CPA for judgment against the garnishee itself for the amount that should have been paid. The court can refuse if the amounts involved are too small to justify it. Garnishee orders can be issued against the Crown as well, which matters where the debtor is owed money by a government department.
Writs for the levy of property: the Sheriff seizes assets
A writ for the levy of property is the court's instruction to the Sheriff to take control of the judgment debtor's assets and sell them to satisfy the judgment. Under s 106 of the CPA, the writ authorises the Sheriff to seize and sell goods, seize money, take securities such as cheques and bonds, and in some cases enter and sell land.
The Sheriff must notify the debtor before enforcing the writ, giving them a final chance to pay. If they do not pay, the Sheriff attends the premises, makes an inventory of items to be taken, and either removes them immediately or appoints a custodian to hold them until sale. Goods cannot be sold before the sixth day after seizure, although perishable goods can be sold immediately.
The Sheriff's powers have limits. Certain property is protected from seizure, including the debtor's personal clothing, bedroom and kitchen furniture, and tools of trade worth $2,000 or less, on the basis that the debtor needs these things to live and work. Land can only be taken where the amount outstanding is substantial, and the Sheriff's Office currently applies a threshold of more than $20,000 before it will move against houses and land. If a seized item actually belongs to a third party, the owner can lodge a notice of disputed property, and ownership disputes can end up before the court.
Enforcement through the Sheriff is not free. As at 1 July 2026, executing a writ for the levy of property costs $111 for each address attended, plus 3% of the proceeds of enforcement, and there are separate fees for guarding seized property and preparing land for sale. These costs can usually be added to the debt you are recovering, but you pay them upfront.
A writ registered against land has an additional effect worth knowing about. Under s 113 of the CPA, once a writ is registered against the debtor's land, the debtor cannot sell or mortgage the land for up to six months without your consent, which stops them from moving the asset out of reach while enforcement proceeds.
Charging orders: security over shares, deposits and interests
A charging order does not sell anything. It gives you a charge over a specified asset of the judgment debtor, so the asset is tied up in your favour until the debt is paid. Charging orders are only available for Supreme Court and District Court judgments, and under s 126 of the CPA they can attach to stock and shares in a public company, money on deposit with a financial institution, and equitable interests in property.
The order takes effect as soon as it is made. While it is in force, the debtor cannot deal with the charged asset without your directions, and a third party who deals with the asset knowing about the order can be made liable to you for the shortfall. Any transfer or disposal by the debtor that contradicts the order is ineffective against you. The catch is that the charge does not by itself give you the money. You cannot start proceedings to take the benefit of the charge until three months after the order is made, and converting the charge into payment usually requires a further court application.
Charging orders are a good option where the debtor owns shares in a listed company or has a sizeable deposit, and where you want to freeze the asset while you arrange the next step. They are a poor fit where the asset is small, illiquid, or already heavily encumbered.
Bankruptcy and statutory demands: escalating the pressure
When the debtor will not pay and court-based enforcement is going nowhere, the escalation routes are bankruptcy for individuals and winding up for companies. Both are blunt instruments, and both are governed by Commonwealth law, not the NSW scheme.
For an individual, you can apply to make the debtor bankrupt where the debt is $10,000 or more, as AFSA's guidance for creditors confirms. The first formal step is a bankruptcy notice, issued by the Official Receiver on your application, which gives the debtor 21 days to pay the debt or reach an arrangement. If the debtor does not comply, they commit an act of bankruptcy, and you can present a creditor's petition to the court within the following six months. If a sequestration order is made, a trustee takes control of the debtor's assets and income to pay creditors in a statutory order of priority. That priority order is the risk: other creditors, including secured creditors, may rank ahead of you, and you may recover only a fraction of what you are owed.
For a company, the equivalent first step is a statutory demand under s 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which requires payment of a debt of at least $4,000, the prescribed statutory minimum. The company has 21 days to pay, or to apply to the court to set the demand aside, for example on the basis of a genuine dispute about the debt. If it does neither, the company is presumed insolvent, and the creditor can apply to have it wound up. A liquidator then takes control, sells the assets and distributes the proceeds to creditors in priority order. The same presumption of insolvency arises where execution on a judgment against the company has been returned wholly or partly unsatisfied, which means a failed writ can feed a winding-up application.
Bankruptcy and winding up are public, expensive and slow, and they put control of the recovery in the hands of a trustee or liquidator rather than you. They are usually the right call only where the debt is large, the debtor is genuinely insolvent, and other mechanisms have failed.
Choosing between the mechanisms
The scheme is designed to be used in combination, and most recoveries involve more than one tool. A common sequence is to garnishee the bank account early, before the debtor drains it, then use an examination notice to map the remaining assets, then decide between a writ, a charging order, and the insolvency routes.
A few pitfalls are worth naming. A garnishee order against an empty account recovers nothing, so timing matters more than paperwork. A writ against a debtor with no seizable assets simply adds Sheriff's fees to your costs. A charging order over a falling asset can leave you holding a charge worth less than the debt. And in bankruptcy or liquidation, unsecured creditors like you often recover cents in the dollar, so the threat value of these processes can exceed their recovery value.
The single most common mistake is enforcing without information. Debtors who know a judgment is coming often move money, sell assets or refinance. Finding out what the debtor actually has, before you commit to a mechanism, is what separates recoveries from dead ends.
Where a lawyer helps
You can file much of the enforcement paperwork yourself, and the courts publish the forms. But the choices in this scheme are consequential and fact-dependent. A lawyer can help with the sequencing: which mechanism to run first, whether to hold the bankruptcy or winding-up threat in reserve, and how to read the examination answers for signs of asset shifting. A lawyer can also confirm the current figures that change over time, such as the protected garnishee amount and the Sheriff's fee schedule, and can advise on priority risks where the debtor owes money to other creditors.
A lawyer is close to essential where the debtor is fighting back, where third parties claim ownership of assets the Sheriff has seized, or where the debtor is already in another insolvency process. In those situations the cost of getting the mechanism wrong, or running it late, can exceed the cost of advice taken early. A consultation can also tell you when enforcement is not worth pursuing, which is a genuinely useful answer to have before you spend money.
Acting before the debtor does
Every mechanism in this scheme shares one feature: the debtor finds out about it eventually, and once they do, they can respond. The bank account balance at the moment a garnishee order is served, the assets in the premises when the Sheriff arrives, and the company's solvency when a statutory demand lands are all snapshots in time. The judgment debt is already accruing interest at more than 10% a year, so the debt grows while you wait.
The decision that matters most is not which mechanism sounds strongest in the abstract. It is which asset you are going to hit first, and whether you have enough information to hit it before the debtor moves it. Get the examination done, hit the liquid assets fast, and keep the heavier weapons, writs and insolvency, for the debtors who need them. That sequence is where most of the recoverable value in this process actually sits.