Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

McDonald & Anor v D&F Contracts Ltd [2018] EWHC 1600 (TCC)

19th Mar 2018

Appearing for the claimant Mr and Mrs McDonald, Mathias Cheung was successful in an application for judgment in default in what Mrs Justice Jefford described as “a rather unusual case”.

The application was made by the claimants after a Defence had been filed, albeit out of time. Despite conflicting dicta at the High Court level as to the proper scope of CPR Part 12, Mrs Justice Jefford entered judgment in default, noting that although this could not be done administratively in these circumstances, the claimants were entitled to make a Part 23 application under Part 12 on the basis that the reference to “Defence” in CPR r.12.3(1) was to a Defence served within the time permitted by the CPR.

While judgment was entered in default for the principal sum in total, Mrs Justice Jefford was concerned by the defendant’s absence at the hearing and a number of inadequacies in the Particulars of Claim, such that a stay of execution was given for a period of 28 days within which the defendant may make an application to set aside and, if necessary, for any further stay of execution.

At pains to point out that Mathias Cheung had no part in the drafting of the Particulars of Claim of which Mrs Justice Jefford was somewhat critical, Mrs Justice Jefford said she proposed to draw up the order and include the observations made in the course of her judgment. which is essence were that the claimants’ claim appears in a number of respects to be overstated; that the defendant’s defence appears to intend to put the claimants to proof; and that the defendant may, within the period of the stay of execution, make an application to set aside the default judgment.

Mathias Cheung instructed by DWF LLP for the Claimants

To view the full judgment click here.

19 March 2018





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register