header-logo header-logo

30 September 2022 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7996 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Absent without leave

Masood Ahmed examines the court’s approach to a party’s non-attendance at trial, & the high bar for applications to set aside the resulting judgment
  • The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mabrouk v Murray provides helpful guidance on the approach the courts will take when considering applications under CPR 39.3 following the non-attendance of a party.
  • An application to set aside a judgment or order of a court must clearly satisfy all of the conditions in CPR 39.3(5), and the application must be supported with strong evidence and convincing arguments.

Where a party has failed to attend trial, a court may proceed with a trial in the absence of that party. However, the non-attending party may, pursuant to CPR 39.3(3), subsequently make an application to the court to set aside any judgment or order made against it. A court may only grant an application under CPR 39.3(3) if it is satisfied that each of the three limbs of CPR 39.3(5) have been met. CPR 39.3(5) provides that the applicant:

a. must have acted

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll