Sheriff Regulations 2019

The regulations primarily affect judgment creditors - individuals, businesses, or government agencies that have obtained a court judgment and seek to enforce it through a civil warrant. They are the direct fee-payers. The fee structure increases the cost of enforcement, especially if multiple addresses are involved or if the first attempt fails. This may influence a creditor’s decision to pursue enforcement at all, particularly for smaller debts where the fees could consume a significant portion of the amount recovered. Debtors are indirectly affected because the sheriff’s fees (and any additional charges) are typically recoverable from them under court rules or the warrant, meaning the total debt increases. However, the regulations themselves do not impose any obligations on debtors; they only regulate the sheriff’s charging.

The sheriff’s office (the Office of the Sheriff of Victoria) is the entity that collects and must account for these fees. The fees are designed to cover the cost of enforcement, so the sheriff’s budget is directly tied to the volume of warrants and the number of attempts. The waiver power allows the sheriff to forgo revenue in certain cases, which may affect operational resources.

Courts are affected because the regulations apply different fee schedules depending on which court issued the warrant. The Supreme Court and County Court have identical fee structures (except that the County Court division also applies), while the Magistrates’ Court has a simpler, lower-cost structure (no separate warrant-of-possession fee; a single flat fee for all civil warrants). This disparity may reflect the lower complexity or value of Magistrates’ Court matters. Practitioners and self-represented litigants must identify the correct court tier to calculate the fee.

Legal practitioners and debt recovery agents must know the current fee unit value and the applicable fee schedule to advise clients accurately on enforcement costs. They also need to understand the waiver process for impecunious clients. Taxpayers are affected indirectly: if fee revenue does not cover the full cost of enforcement, the shortfall is borne by the consolidated fund.

Government agencies that enforce fines or confiscation orders may rely on the prescribed Acts list (regulation 20) to determine if a particular statute gives the sheriff enforcement powers. The list includes the Confiscation Act 1997 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, among others, so agencies like the State Revenue Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions (for confiscation), and the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority may need to interact with these regulations.

Duty to pay fees. Any person who wishes the sheriff to execute a civil warrant must pay the fee prescribed in Part 2. The fee is payable before or at the time of lodging the warrant; the regulations do not specify the timing, but standard practice is upfront payment. The fee is not contingent on successful execution. The regulations create a statutory obligation to pay the fee; non-payment likely means the sheriff will not act.

Right to request a waiver. Under regulation 19A, a person may apply to the sheriff for a waiver of any fee. The sheriff must be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” for the waiver. The regulations do not define reasonable grounds, giving the sheriff broad discretion. The decision is not appealable within these regulations, but could be subject to judicial review if exercised capriciously. The waiver may be conditional - for example, the sheriff could waive the execution fee but require the applicant to pay the mileage or other costs.

Right to request execution. A person who pays the fee has the right to have the sheriff attempt execution of the warrant within the limits of the sheriff’s resources and powers under the Sheriff Act 2009. However, the regulations do not guarantee a particular number of attempts; the fee only covers the block of attempts specified. After the block is exhausted, further attempts require additional payment.

Right to request duplicate. Any party can request a duplicate copy of a warrant from the sheriff, upon payment of the 1.99 fee unit fee.

Duty to provide correct warrant details. Regulation 21 requires that a warrant lodged with the sheriff must contain the prescribed details. If it does not, the sheriff may refuse to accept it or may require amendment. The person applying for the warrant (usually through the court) must ensure the warrant includes the court of issue, the outstanding fine amount (if any), any other fees, a matter description, and the relevant Act and section. This ensures the sheriff can identify the legal basis for enforcement and any outstanding amounts beyond the sheriff’s fees.

No duty on the sheriff. The regulations do not impose any affirmative duties on the sheriff beyond the implied duty to execute warrants for which fees have been paid. The sheriff’s powers and duties are set out in the Sheriff Act 2009, not here.

The Sheriff Regulations 2019 do not themselves create any penalties for non-compliance. They are a fee-setting instrument, not a penal one. Failure to pay the fee simply means the sheriff will not act. There is no criminal penalty for late payment or for providing incomplete warrant details (though the court issuing the warrant may have its own rules). The only enforcement mechanism implicit in the regulations is the sheriff’s ability to refuse service if fees are not paid or if the warrant lacks the prescribed details.

The waiver regulation gives the sheriff a discretion to forgo a fee, but that is not a penalty; it is a concession. If the sheriff grants a conditional waiver and the condition is not met, the fee presumably becomes payable again, but the regulations do not specify consequences.

Because the fees are expressed in fee units, the dollar amount changes each year. If a person miscalculates the fee based on an outdated fee unit value, the sheriff may reject the warrant or require the correct amount. There is no late-payment surcharge, but the delay allows the debtor more time to dissipate assets.

The regulations interact with the Sheriff Act 2009, which does contain enforcement-related offences, such as obstructing the sheriff (section 41) - a fine of up to 10 penalty units. But that is not contained in these regulations. The regulations also do not address what happens if the sheriff fails to execute a warrant or does so negligently; remedies would lie in tort or under the Act, not the regulations.

Sheriff Act 2009 (the parent Act). The regulations are made under section 56 of that Act. They prescribe fees and matters required by the Act. In particular, regulation 21 prescribes details for section 14(2) of the Act, which deals with the content of warrants. Regulation 20 prescribes Acts that fall within the definition of “court and enforcement legislation” in section 3 of the Act, which defines the scope of the sheriff’s enforcement jurisdiction. The Act gives the sheriff the power to execute warrants, seize property, and arrest in limited circumstances; the regulations merely set the price tag.

Monetary Units Act 2004. The fee unit system relies entirely on this Act. The value of a fee unit is set annually under that Act. Changes in the fee unit value automatically increase or decrease the dollar fees without amending these regulations. This transfers the political cost of raising enforcement fees to the Treasurer’s annual determination.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. Regulation 3 notes that these regulations sunset 10 years after the day of making (10 September 2029) under section 5 of that Act. This institutionalises future review; if the government wants the regulations to continue, it must remake them before the sunset date.

Prescribed Acts (regulation 20). The fifteen listed Acts are those under which the sheriff may enforce warrants or orders. For example, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 allows the sheriff to enforce possession orders; the Confiscation Act 1997 allows enforcement of forfeiture orders. The list is not exhaustive of all Acts the sheriff can enforce - only those that fall within the “court and enforcement legislation” definition. Other Acts may still give the sheriff powers via separate provisions.

Court rules. Each court (Supreme, County, Magistrates’) has its own rules governing the issue of warrants and the recovery of enforcement costs from the debtor. Those rules may allow the judgment creditor to add the sheriff’s fees to the debt and recover them. The regulations do not alter that; they only set the sheriff’s own charge.

State taxation laws. The fees are not taxes; they are charges for services. They may be GST-exempt if the sheriff is part of the state government. Practitioners should confirm whether the fee units include or exclude GST (the regulations are silent).

The regulations were originally made as S.R. No. 80/2019 on 10 September 2019 and commenced on 28 September 2019. They revoked the Sheriff Regulations 2009 (S.R. No. 112/2009) and the Sheriff Amendment Regulations 2018 (S.R. No. 44/2018).

The only amendment to date is the Sheriff Amendment Regulations 2021 (S.R. No. 117/2021), made and commenced on 21 September 2021. This amendment inserted Part 2 Division 4, containing a new heading and regulation 19A, which gives the sheriff a discretionary power to waive fees. The amendment did not change any fee amounts, the prescribed Acts list, or the prescribed warrant details. No other amendments are currently not in operation (as at the version date of 21 September 2021). The version history indicates that all amendments up to that date are incorporated. The regulations may be further amended by future statutory rules.

There is no recorded litigation history arising directly from these regulations. The source text contains no references to any court cases interpreting or challenging the Sheriff Regulations 2019. This is unsurprising for a fee-setting regulation; disputes about sheriff fees more typically arise in the context of the underlying court proceeding or as part of an objection to the sheriff’s execution. A party could theoretically seek judicial review of the sheriff’s refusal to waive fees under regulation 19A, or challenge the validity of a particular fee as exceeding the power in the Sheriff Act 2009, but no such case is on record in the instrument. The absence of litigation suggests the fee schedule has not been controversial enough to prompt a court challenge, or that disputes are resolved administratively. Practitioners should be aware that the previous regulations (the Sheriff Regulations 2009) may have been the subject of case law, but that is outside the scope of this document.

Fee unit value changes yearly. A practitioner calculating a fee based on last year’s gazette notice will be wrong. The fee must be calculated using the value for the financial year in which the warrant is lodged. For example, in 2021-22 the value was $15.03; in 2022-23 it will be different. The dollar amount can rise or fall. This adds an administrative burden on creditors to verify the current rate.

Rounding to nearest 10 cents. The Monetary Units Act 2004 allows rounding, which can cause minor discrepancies when multiple fees are aggregated. For example, 1.99 fee units at $15.03 equals $29.97 - rounded to $30.00. Over many warrants, this rounding may systematically increase revenue.

Waiver is discretionary, not a right. Regulation 19A says the sheriff may waive fees if satisfied of reasonable grounds. There is no right to a hearing, no requirement to give reasons, and no appeal mechanism in the regulations. An applicant whose financial circumstances are dire cannot demand a waiver; the sheriff could refuse without explanation. This introduces uncertainty for low-income judgment creditors.

Fee for withheld then reinstated warrant. If a creditor asks the sheriff to hold off executing and later wants to proceed, a fee of 10.45 fee units is payable. This is easy to overlook if the creditor assumed the original fee covered the entire enforcement process. It also creates a disincentive to negotiate with the debtor after lodging the warrant.

Renewal fee after expiry. If a warrant expires without being executed, the creditor must get a new warrant from the court and pay the sheriff an additional 10.45 fee units to provide that new warrant. The original fee paid for the old warrant does not cover the replacement. Creditors should monitor expiry dates to avoid this extra cost.

No refunds for failed execution. The fee is payable for “execution or attempted execution”. If the sheriff attends and finds no one home, the fee is still payable. The fee does not decline with failure. This is a risk for creditors uncertain about the debtor’s location.

Magistrates’ Court fee structure is simpler but different. Unlike the Supreme and County Court regulations, there is no separate category for a warrant of possession in the Magistrates’ Court. Every civil warrant costs the same: 13.71 fee units for the first four attempts. This means a landlord seeking possession of a rented property in the Magistrates’ Court pays the same flat rate as a creditor seeking a money judgment. But the flat rate does not distinguish between simple and complex warrants.

Prescribed Acts list is not exhaustive for all sheriff functions. Regulation 20 only prescribes Acts for the definition of “court and enforcement legislation”. The sheriff may have powers under other Acts (e.g., the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989) that are not listed. Do not assume that only the listed Acts allow sheriff enforcement.

Missing details makes the warrant invalid. Regulation 21 requires five pieces of information. If any one is missing, the sheriff may refuse to execute. A common oversight is omitting the “Act and section to which the warrant relates”. For a simple debt judgment under the Magistrates’ Court Act, that might be obvious, but if not included, the sheriff could reject it.

Sunset 10 September 2029. The regulations will cease to have effect unless remade before that date. If not remade, there will be no fee schedule, and the sheriff may be unable to charge for enforcement, causing service disruption. Practitioners should monitor the sunset.

Step 1: Identify the correct court tier. Determine whether the warrant was issued by the Supreme Court, County Court, or Magistrates’ Court. The fee schedule differs. Note that the Supreme Court and County Court schedules are identical, but the regulation still requires applying the correct division.

Step 2: Check the warrant type. If the warrant is a warrant of possession alone, or a warrant of possession plus another civil warrant, use the specific fee in regulations 6(1) and 6(2) (or the County Court equivalents). For all other civil warrants (e.g., seizure of goods), use the general fee in regulation 6(3) (Supreme/County) or regulation 16 (Magistrates’ Court).

Step 3: Count the number of addresses and attempts. If the warrant lists more than one address for execution, add 10.45 fee units per additional address. If the creditor anticipates needing more attempts than the initial block (e.g., more than 4 attempts for a general warrant), budget for additional fees.

Step 4: Calculate the fee in dollars. Find the current fee unit value from the Government Gazette (published before 1 June each year). Multiply the total fee units by that value. Round the result to the nearest 10 cents. Do not rely on last year’s figures.

Step 5: Pay the fee when lodging the warrant. The fee is payable to the sheriff (typically through the court registry or directly to the Office of the Sheriff). Keep a receipt.

Step 6: Ensure warrant contains all prescribed details. Before applying to the court for the warrant, confirm that the warrant will include: the issuing court, outstanding fine amount (if applicable), any other payable fees (not under these regulations), a description of the matter, and the Act and section under which it is issued (if applicable). If the court’s standard warrant form does not include these, request that it be added.

Step 7: Consider a fee waiver application (optional). If the applicant cannot afford the fee, they may request a waiver from the sheriff. There is no set form; write to the sheriff explaining the grounds. The sheriff may impose conditions. There is no guarantee of success.

Step 8: Monitor the warrant’s progress. If the sheriff withholds or withdraws the warrant at the creditor’s request, and the creditor later wants to proceed, a further fee of 10.45 fee units is due. Plan enforcement strategy to minimise stop-start actions.

Step 9: Be aware of expiry and renewal fees. If the warrant is about to expire and has not been executed, the creditor should decide whether to request a new warrant (and pay the 10.45 fee unit renewal fee) or let it lapse and reapply later.

Step 10: Sunset management. If the regulations sunset on 10 September 2029, creditors relying on sheriff enforcement after that date should confirm whether replacement regulations are in force. If not, alternative enforcement methods may be necessary.

Compliance essentially means paying the correct amount upfront and ensuring the paperwork is complete. The regulations do not require ongoing reporting or record-keeping beyond what is standard in court proceedings. The main compliance risk is underpaying due to an outdated fee unit value or miscalculating the number of attempts or addresses. Overpayment is unlikely to be refunded voluntarily. Practitioners should also note that the waiver power is a selective concession, not a safe harbour for non-payment.