Setting aside default judgment (Tideland v Westminster CC)

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Facts
• What did the court decide?
• Was the application made promptly?
• Was the failure to acknowledge service on time serious and significant?
• Was there a good reason for the failure to acknowledge service on time?
• Was it just in all the circumstances of the case to grant relief?
• Conclusions and costs
• Court details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Edwards-Stuart J in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has set aside a judgment made in default of filing an acknowledgment of service notwithstanding the defendant council’s complete failure to respond to any of the claimant’s solicitors’ correspondence over many months. In doing so, Edwards-Stuart J confirmed that the court is to apply the principles in CPR 3.9, as interpreted in Denton, to such applications. He placed emphasis on the fact that the sanction must be proportionate to the non-compliance and its consequences, so that a party might still be relieved of a sanction imposed for a breach of the rules which is serious and significant with no good reason.