The defendant appealed against an order for rectification of the registered title to land he occupied, and for which he had had a possessory title. The order had been made in his absence.
Held: A ‘good reason’ for non attendance at a hearing was not just an honest and genuine one, but the court must not be over-analytical. The court is to ascertain from the evidence what the true reason for non attendance at trial was and, looking at the matter in the round, to ask whether that reason is sufficient to entitle the applicant to invoke the discretion of the court to set aside the order. Here, the address for service was incorrect, the defendant was illiterate, and he had not received the notice. The fact of his illiteracy was relevant. There was good reason for non-attendance. Here, the defendant had lodged a statutory declaration in support of his application for possessory title, and it was unclear that the proceedings should have gone ahead on the basis that there would be no factual dispute. Appeal against the setting aside of the order dismissed.
Mummery LJ said: ‘There has been some debate before us, as there was before the judge, about what is or is not capable of being a ‘good reason.’ In my opinion the search for a definition or description of ‘good reason’ or for a set of criteria differentiating between good and bad reasons is unnecessary. I agree with Hart J that, although the court must be satisfied that the reason is an honest or genuine one, that by itself is not sufficient to make a reason for non-attendance a ‘good reason.’ The court has to examine all the evidence relevant to the defendant’s non-attendance; ascertain from the evidence what, as a matter of fact, was the true ‘reason’ for non attendance; and, looking at the matter in the round, ask whether that reason is sufficient to entitle the applicant to invoke the discretion of the court to set aside the order. An over analytical approach to the issue is not appropriate, bearing in mind the duty of the court, when interpreting the rules and exercising any power given to it by the rules, to give effect to the overriding objective of enabling it to deal with cases justly. The perfectly ordinary English phrase ‘good reason’ as used in CPR 39.3(5) is a sufficiently clear expression of the standard of acceptability to be applied to enable a court to determine whether or not there is a good reason for non-attendance.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Hale, and Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
Times 18-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1135, [2003] CP Rep 7
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regency Rolls Ltd and Another v Carnall CA 16-Oct-2000
The court considered what was meant by ‘act promptly’ in the Rule.
Held: Dictionary definitions were considered by both Arden LJ and Simon Brown LJ – ‘with alacrity’ or ‘all reasonable celerity in the circumstances’. The court no longer has a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Cited – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
Cited – WXY v Gewanter and Another QBD 30-May-2012
The claimant had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of what was private information. The third defendant now applied to set aside the judgment, saying that their application for an adjournment had been wrongly refused. He said that he . .
Cited – Kenny and Others v Abubaker and Others CA 23-Oct-2012
The defendant landlord sought to appeal against an order that he pay to the respondent tenants a penalty under the 2004 Act of three times the tenancy deposit. The court was now asked whether there was has any right to have set aside a judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Registered Land, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174447