Bigwilf v HSBC

[johnnymitch]

Thats not nice Johnny!

 

Aw, sorry Freaky, I didn't mean that as it sounded - I've agreed with you millions of times :grin: - even if you are from the land of sheep and rarebits............. Laffin !

[freakyleaky]

so the fact that we havent lost or rather HSBC havent won a judgement set aside yet means nothing?... syd's mum where are you if you lot are getting back handers from HSBC where's mine

I think you understand where we are coming from pete! It really is a lottery at the moment with the judges acting the way they are!

[Castlebest]

:o in stays yes but not in judgement set aside hearings HSBC havent won one yet.

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

A few are getting through ,Pete, and we must be optimistic - the superman one was especially encouraging.......... .

[freakyleaky]

Sorry Pete I was sure there were a few that had been lost! I am losing the plot! I could have sworn there were a few set aside hearings that had gone their way! I will have to go searching to convince myself I am wrong!

[hagenuk]

I really don't think this is helping. This is nothing to do with the OFT test case, or pressure from some higher authority, it has to do with CPR and what is termed stare decisis.

 

Default judgments have never been a successful way to conduct civil litigation and as someone who has litigated for over ten years I can tell you that, like it or not, this is how it works.

 

Relying on a judgment in default is foolhardy and ill-advised and will do nothing but cause delays and furthermore, may mean the claimant incurs costs. CPR 13 is very clear on this and in the event that the defendant claims not to have received the documents, or in your case "misfiles" them, the court will have no option but to set aside the judgement.

 

The judges are bound by CPR and must follow the rules and will almost without exception grant the set aside.

 

In Law v St Margarets Insurance Ltd [2001] the Court of Appeal allowed judgment in default to be set aside despite the defendant’s solicitors’ procedural errors in failing to file an acknowledgment of service and in failing to ensure that the statement of truth in relation to the evidence in support of the application was signed by the right person. The overriding objective required that the default judgment be set aside in order to enable the merits of the defence to be determined. In Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hansen (2001) a default judgment was set aside on the ground that the defendant had a real prospect of success.

[johnnymitch]

i think the last one you quoted was for a Credit Card Pete, - isn't that a different ball-game?

[hagenuk]

I would also like to add that what I have written applies to Judgment in Default in relation to CPR Part 12.

 

A simple request-for-judgment procedure under Part 12 is available in money claims (CPR 12.4(1)), which include claims for specified sums, claims for unquantified damages and some other types of claim. Under this procedure, judgment is entered over the counter on filing a request for default judgment, without any consideration of the merits of the claim.

 

This leaves you wide open to CPR Part 13, which relates to applications for the varying or setting aside of judgments made under CPR Part 12.

 

None of the links posted by Castlebest relate to this and as far as I am aware, very few, if any claimants have succeeded in preventing a set aside.

[zootscoot]

Threads merged

 

Let us know how you got on today!

[jowalshy]

any news bigwilf?

 

(Thanks zoot for the magic merging:D )