The court was asked as to what issues were relevant when considering an application to set aside judgment in default and in particular when asking ‘whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly’. Judges: Ward, Sedley, Smith LJJ Citations: [2009] EWCA Civ 1222, [2010] CP Rep 10 … Continue reading Mullock v Price (T/A The Elms Hotel Restaurant): CA 15 Oct 2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim which was to seek to enforce a judgment obtained in Kiev and in the Ukraine Supreme Court. Held: It had been a proper exercise of the discretion under CPR r 13.3 to refuse to set aside the default judgment. A court in England had … Continue reading Merchant International Company Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kompaniia Naftogaz: CA 29 Feb 2012
The defendant applied to have set aside judgement entered against him in default of acknowledgment of service. Held: The authorities make it plain that, in order to satisfy the test for resisting a summary claim for for wrongful repudiation and/or breach of contract, a defendant has to demonstrate a defence which is not ‘false, fanciful … Continue reading International Finance Corporation v Utexafrica SPRL: ComC 9 May 2001
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success. Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish that there are grounds for his belief … Continue reading E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another: CA 4 Apr 2003
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others: ChD 27 Jul 2010
Pre-action disclosure. The test of a properly arguable case with a real prospect of success is the same test as is set out in CPR 13.3(1) and 24.2 in relation to setting aside judgments in default and resisting summary judgment respectively. The Court of Appeal in Rose had not been concerned with whether a lower … Continue reading BSW Ltd v Balltec Ltd: ChD 11 Apr 2006
The defendant sought a variation under Part 3.1(7) of an order setting aside an earlier judgment in default of defence, on terms requiring a substantial payment into court with which the defendant, who was a litigant in person, had not complied. Patten J discussed the jurisdiction under Part 3.1(7): ‘The Deputy Judge exercised a discretion … Continue reading Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen: ChD 15 Jul 2003
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the court to exercise its discretion or whether he was entitled … Continue reading Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd: CA 22 Sep 2006
In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘We have reservations about the approach adopted by the … Continue reading Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004
The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the … Continue reading Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear words. The judge … Continue reading Swain v Hillman: CA 21 Oct 1999
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI. Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also where he acted with knowledge of, or … Continue reading Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3): HL 22 Mar 2001
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment. Held: Summary judgment was refused. The witness statements were admitted to contain contradictory and unreliable evidence, and the allegations … Continue reading Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others: ChD 7 Mar 2007
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request The court considered an application for summary judgment. Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as follows: i) The court must consider whether the claimant has … Continue reading Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd: ChD 2 Mar 2009