Default judgment

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

A default judgment or judgment in default is a judgment entered without trial where a defendant has failed to respond to a claim. It is an administrative procedure which means judgment is entered without consideration of the merits of the claim.

Default judgments are dealt with under CPR 12 and there are a number of conditions which must be satisfied before the court will enter judgment:

  1. •

    the defendant must have been properly served with the claim

  2. •

    the defendant must not have responded to the claim, whether by acknowledgment of service or defence, and

  3. •

    the relevant time period for responding must have expired

Where the conditions are satisfied, the claimant can apply for a default judgment to be entered. The application can either be by way of simple request or by formal application under CPR 23. The appropriate procedure will depend on the type of claim and the method of service.

Default judgment is not available

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

No harm, no foul? Court of Appeal provides clarifications around controllers’ liability in the context of compensation claims under Article 82 of the UK GDPR (Farley and others v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) (Information Commissioner intervening))

Information Law analysis: In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court decision which denied compensation to individuals affected by a data breach. The judgment contains helpful clarifications regarding compensation claims made pursuant to Article 82 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR), including the requirements for establishing UK GDPR infringement, the scope of non-material damage and, more broadly, the position of the UK courts in relation to EU Court of Justice case law and its application in the context of domestic data protection rules. The Court of Appeal held that bringing a UK GDPR infringement claim does not require proof that personal data was actually disclosed to third parties. Unlawful processing is a sufficient basis in principle for damage to be suffered. There is also no minimum threshold for non-material damage when it comes to a data subject’s entitlement to compensation under Article 82 of the UK GDPR. The scope of such damage can include an objective, well-founded fear or apprehension of misuse of personal data. This judgment is also a helpful reminder of the broad scope of activities that fall within the concept of processing and the importance of controllers’ compliance with Articles 24, 25 and 32 of the UK GDPR and the general principles in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law.

Lady Chief Justice responds to Bar Council's bullying and harassment review

The Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales has responded to the Bar Council’s Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar—which was published on 8 September 2025 and conducted by Baroness Harriet Harman KC. The review revealed multiple instances of judicial bullying and put forward several recommendations aimed at the Bar Council, the judiciary, and other relevant bodies to tackle and mitigate bullying within the legal profession. In her response, The Rt Hon the Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill reaffirmed her commitment to a modern, diverse, and inclusive judiciary. She strongly condemned judicial bullying as unacceptable and outlined ongoing measures, including the review of complaint procedures, the expansion of inclusion training, and enhanced support for judges—particularly those in leadership roles—to ensure that all judicial office holders maintain the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and respect in the justice system.

RTA Small Claims Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) updates—in force 1 October 2025

The Master of the Rolls has approved the amendments to the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA Small Claims Protocol), effective from 1 October 2025. The amendments deal with the treatment of non-Protocol vehicle costs (NVC) within the Official Injury Claim Portal. Previously, both claimants and compensators were required to manually upload NVC forms. Under the revised protocol, the portal will now automatically generate these forms using data provided by both parties, thereby streamlining the process and reducing the administrative burden.

September 2025 update to Chancery Guide and accompanying Practice Note

The Chancery Guide and its accompanying Practice Note have been updated.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Setting aside default judgment—mandatory grounds (CPR 13.2)

Setting aside default judgment—mandatory grounds (CPR 13.2)If default judgment is wrongly entered against a defendant the court must set that judgment aside. CPR 13.2 sets out mandatory grounds for setting aside a default judgment—if these grounds are present the court has no discretion and must set

Summary judgment—relevant factors and examples

Summary judgment—relevant factors and examplesThe Practice Notes:•Summary judgment—principles of approach•Summary judgment—no real prospect of success•Summary judgment—no other compelling reason for a trialset out the general approach to summary judgment applications and the two separate limbs for

Summary judgment—no real prospect of success

Summary judgment—no real prospect of successAmendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes

Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c))

Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c))Under CPR 3.4(2)(c), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.It is evident from this that an
Setting aside default judgment—mandatory grounds (CPR 13.2)

Setting aside default judgment—mandatory grounds (CPR 13.2)

Setting aside default judgment—mandatory grounds (CPR 13.2)If default judgment is wrongly entered against a defendant the court must set that judgment aside. CPR 13.2 sets out mandatory grounds for setting aside a default judgment—if these grounds are present the court has no discretion and must set

Summary judgment—relevant factors and examples

Summary judgment—relevant factors and examples

Summary judgment—relevant factors and examplesThe Practice Notes:•Summary judgment—principles of approach•Summary judgment—no real prospect of success•Summary judgment—no other compelling reason for a trialset out the general approach to summary judgment applications and the two separate limbs for

Summary judgment—no real prospect of success

Summary judgment—no real prospect of success

Summary judgment—no real prospect of successAmendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes

Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c))

Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c))

Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c))Under CPR 3.4(2)(c), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.It is evident from this that an