- Setting aside an order made in the absence of the respondent (Ghadami v Bloomfield and others)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background to this decision?
- What did the court decide?
- How should the court deal with the concurrent appeal and application?
- How should an application to set aside by a non-attending party be dealt with?
- Should the court have adjourned the hearing?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Norris J has dismissed an application under CPR 23.11 to set aside an order made at an application hearing in the respondent’s absence. In doing so he adopted the factors applicable to applications made under CPR 39.3 (where the hearing in question is a trial), including whether or not the respondent has an arguable case on the merits. He also clarified that the principle in Pereira, that the respondent should apply to set aside the order before appealing, applies in the case of applications under CPR 23.11.
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