Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Challenge to court jurisdiction
- Default judgment application
- Timing of filing the defence—oddity
- Case details
Article summary
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court refused a challenge to its jurisdiction that was made outside of the time limits prescribed by the rules. As a consequence of the failure to challenge jurisdiction, the court also entered default judgment against Yanchenko. This case provides useful discussion of the procedural requirements of challenging jurisdiction; the principles applicable to extensions of time when the deadlines are missed; and the interplay between default judgment and a failure to successfully challenge jurisdiction. It is also useful in its discussion of the recently redrafted default judgment provisions—CPR 12.3(1). Written by Christopher Snell, barrister, at New Square Chambers.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial