- Limits on when a third party is ‘directly affected’ by a default judgment under CPR 40.9 (Mohamed and another v Egyptian Association in Great Britain Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute resolution: The case concerned the scope and effect of CPR 40.9 which provides: ‘a person who is not a party but who is directly affected by a judgment or order may apply to have the judgment or order set aside or varied.’ The main issue for determination was whether the applicants, in their role as individual directors and trustees of a charity, were ‘directly affected’ by a default judgment obtained against the charity and thus had standing to set it aside. At first instance, a master had decided they were ‘directly affected’ and adopted a very broad construction of CPR 40.9. However, his decision was then overturned on appeal to the High Court and in this judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld that High Court decision, preferring to construe the term ‘directly affected’ on a more narrow basis. Written by Colleen Hanley, barrister at 20 Essex St Chambers, London.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial