Q&As

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal hearing or allocate the case to a track and give standard fast track directions?

read titleRead full title

Published by a UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ PI & Clinical Negligence expert
Published on: 06 August 2019
imgtext

Setting aside Default judgment

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment, a defendant may still wish to defend the claim. To do so, the default judgment will have to be Set aside. For further information, see Practice Note: Setting aside default judgment—mandatory grounds (CPR 13.2) and Commentary: Setting aside judgment: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [65].

Determining loss/damage following a default judgment

Default judgment is defined in CPR 12.1 as a judgment without a trial where a defendant has failed to file an acknowledgment of service or has failed to file a defence. Notably, a default judgment is conclusive to the extent that there is some liability on the defendant’s part. However, the claimant must still prove the loss/damage alleged and so, where a default judgment is granted, the court will give case management directions for the assessment of damages.

A default judgment does not preclude a defendant

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Default judgment definition
What does Default judgment mean?

Judgment on a claim without a trial, where the defendant has failed to file either an acknowledgment of service or a defence.

Read more

Popular documents

If a claimant has issued proceedings against two defendants and subsequently the first defendant makes a

If a claimant has issued proceedings against two defendants and subsequently the first defendant makes a Part 36 offer to settle the matter despite liability being outstanding between the two defendants, can the first defendant then pursue the second defendant for a recovery? Will separate

Scope and impact of vicarious liability

Scope and impact of vicarious liabilityRelationships sufficiently akin to employmentIn Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants, Lord Phillips famously stated at para [19]:‘The law of vicarious liability is on the move.’The relationship that will most often give rise to vicarious liability

Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test

Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection testTo identify the circumstances in which a court may find an employer to be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee it is useful to trace the development of the doctrine.Salmond testHistorically, the test to be

Was the damage foreseeable?

Was the damage foreseeable?STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is under review in the light of the Supreme Court decision in: Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6. For further information, see: LNB News 14/02/2024 62.The concept of foreseeability and remoteness in