Enforcing unpaid costs orders and litigation fees means taking formal steps to recover money that has already been ordered or agreed to be paid, but which still remains outstanding.
For many law firms, this is one of the most frustrating forms of non-payment. By the time a costs order has been made or liability for fees has already been established, there is often a reasonable expectation that payment should follow. When it does not, the issue is no longer whether the debt exists. It is how best to enforce it.
This guide explains how law firms can approach enforcement in England and Wales, what options may be available after judgment or order, and why recovery often depends as much on enforcement strategy as it does on the underlying entitlement.
If your firm is dealing with unpaid fees more generally, our guide to debt recovery for law firms explains the wider recovery process.
When can a law firm enforce unpaid costs or litigation fees?
Enforcement usually becomes relevant once the right to payment is already established.
That may arise because the court has made a costs order, judgment has been entered, a detailed assessment has concluded or the debtor has otherwise become liable for payment in a clear and enforceable way. At that point, the issue is no longer proving entitlement. It is converting that entitlement into actual recovery.
This distinction matters. Many law firms lose time continuing to correspond about payment long after the debt has become enforceable. In practice, the correct question is often not whether more reminders should be sent, but whether formal enforcement should now begin.
The earlier that shift in mindset happens, the more control the creditor usually retains.
Section summary: Enforcement becomes relevant once liability for payment is established and the issue becomes recovery rather than entitlement.
What happens if a costs order or judgment is ignored?
If the debtor fails to pay following a costs order or judgment, the court can be asked to assist with enforcement.
At this stage, the process becomes more tactical. There is rarely a single “best” enforcement route. The right option depends on what is known about the debtor’s assets, income, bank accounts or property position.
A debtor who has ignored a costs order may still be perfectly able to pay. Equally, non-payment may be a sign of wider financial difficulty. The correct enforcement strategy depends on understanding which of those situations applies.
What matters most is not simply moving quickly, but choosing the enforcement method most likely to produce payment.
Section summary: If a costs order is ignored, enforcement should be selected strategically rather than approached as a routine formality.
What enforcement options may be available?
A range of enforcement tools may be available depending on the circumstances.
In some cases, it may be possible to pursue money held by a third party, such as funds in a bank account. In others, enforcement may be directed at property or assets. Where appropriate, High Court enforcement officers may also be considered.
- The most effective route depends on the debtor’s actual financial position, not just the amount owed.
- A strong enforcement strategy is usually built around evidence, timing and proportionality.
There is also a practical point here. Enforcement can fail not because the creditor lacks legal rights, but because the wrong enforcement route is chosen at the wrong time. Recoverability often depends on using the right pressure in the right place.
Section summary: Enforcement works best where the chosen method reflects the debtor’s actual asset position and ability to pay.
Should a law firm investigate the debtor before enforcing?
Usually, yes, although in our view, only if the value of the debt justifies the additional time and expense.
Before incurring further costs, it is often sensible to gather as much information as possible about the debtor’s financial position. This can help identify whether enforcement is likely to be worthwhile and, if so, which route is most likely to succeed.
The value of information is often underestimated. Knowing whether a debtor has accessible funds, property interests or signs of insolvency can make the difference between targeted recovery and wasted expenditure.
This is particularly important where the debtor has a history of delay, evasion or asset movement. In those cases, enforcement should be approached as a strategic exercise rather than a procedural afterthought.
Section summary: Good information improves enforcement outcomes and helps avoid spending money on the wrong process.
What if the debtor is a company under financial pressure?
Where the debtor is a company, unpaid costs or litigation fees may raise a wider insolvency issue.
A company that does not comply with a judgment or costs order may simply be obstructive, but it may also be in genuine financial difficulty. If there are signs of distress, such as repeated non-engagement, creditor pressure or trading problems, the recovery strategy may need to adapt.
In some cases, insolvency procedures may become relevant. In others, urgent enforcement may be preferable before the company’s position deteriorates further. Timing can materially affect the likelihood of recovery.
This is where law firms often benefit from taking a joined-up view. Enforcement and insolvency risk should not be considered separately where the debtor’s solvency is already in doubt.
Section summary: Where the debtor company may be insolvent, enforcement strategy should take account of timing and creditor risk.
When should a law firm instruct specialist enforcement solicitors?
A law firm may already have obtained judgment or secured a costs order, but that does not necessarily mean the matter is straightforward from there.
Specialist input is often sensible where:
- the debtor is ignoring payment obligations
- there is uncertainty about the best enforcement route
- the amount owed is material
- the debtor appears evasive or asset-aware
- insolvency risk may be involved
In many cases, the legal right to payment is only half the battle. The practical challenge is turning that right into recovered money. That is where structured enforcement advice can make the difference.
For firms with multiple unpaid costs orders or litigation-related debts, specialist enforcement support can also create consistency and save internal time.
Section summary: Specialist enforcement support is often most valuable once entitlement is clear but payment still has not been achieved.
How we help law firms enforce unpaid costs and fees
We assist law firms across England and Wales with the enforcement of unpaid costs orders, judgments and litigation-related fee liabilities.
Our work includes reviewing the enforcement position, advising on the most appropriate recovery route and helping firms take targeted action where payment has not followed a court order or other established liability.
Where appropriate, we also advise on the interaction between enforcement and insolvency risk, particularly where a company debtor may already be under financial pressure.
If your firm is dealing with an unpaid costs order or litigation-related debt, we can assess the position and advise on the most effective next step.
FWJ is the ideal choice for helping family law firms recover debts: experts in debt recovery, well-versed in the nature of family law practices and a pleasure to work with.
Kerry Mordey, Director at Hopkins Law
