header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 September 2022 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7996 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , CPR
printer mail-detail

Absent without leave

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll