Category Default judgment,

IF THE DEFENCE IS FILED LATE THE CLAIMANT IS STILL ENTITLED TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT: TWO POINTS TO WATCH

The decision of Deputy Master Pickering in Billington -v- Davies [2016] EWHC 1919 (Ch) illustrates two important principles that are often overlooked. A claimant that has applied for default judgment in default of defence is still entitled to default judgment even if the defence is filed between the date of the application and the date […]

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 3: A NUANCED APPROACH

We have looked several times before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after judgment has been entered*.  The recent decision of Master Matthews in Merito Financial Services Limited -v- David Yelloly [2016] EWHC  2067 (Ch) adds a more nuanced approach to these issues. KEY POINTS Where a claimant […]

ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT

The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in  Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation.   In addition to criticism of the parties conduct it  deals with important issues in relation to (i) filing […]

DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM NOT SET ASIDE – AN OBJECT LESSON IN STAYING AWAKE IN LITIGATION

The decision of Master Matthews today in Goldcrest Distribution Ltd -v- McCole [2016] EWHC 1571 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the need to stay awake to procedural issues throughout litigation. The claimant had a default judgment on a counterclaim entered against them.   The judge refused to set it aside. Consequently the whole of […]

LITIGATION AND WORKLOAD 3: INSURERS

The first post in this series on litigators and workload got an (unexpected) amount of attention.  As part of the series I want to look at one often overlooked, but crucial, part of the litigation chain, insurers. In particular claims handlers.  Judging by the evidence from recent cases it appears that they are not only […]

MONEY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AFTER BREACH OF PEREMPTORY ORDER

In Rubin -v- Parsons [2016] EWHC 237 (Ch) Mr Justice Peter Smith considered the effect of breach of peremptory order in a case where the applicants were claiming much more complex relief.  It shows that a much more calibrated approach is needed to the issue of the appropriate remedy in cases where the claim is […]

VARYING JUDGMENT ENTERED BY CONSENT: CAUSATION, APPEALS AND “NEW” EVIDENCE

In Atkins -v- The Co-operative Group [2016] EWHC 80 (QB) Mr Justice Supperstone varied  a consent order giving judgment for the claimant on liability.  The appeal against the order was not made until six months after the judgment was entered. It is important to note that the judgment was varied to allow the defendant to […]