header-logo header-logo

08 March 2013
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Default judgment

Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Rafiq [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 313 (Feb)

There was no rule that required the court, faced with a long delay from the defendant, to allow a defence to be submitted. It was necessary to consider the requirements of the CPR. The defendant had known of the proceedings and that a defence had been due, but had chosen not to engage. The claimant had been scrupulous in ensuring that the defendant had known of the proceedings and their significance. It was not open to the defendant to superimpose rules of timing of her own making. Further, the authorities indicated that excessive indulgence was not to be given to a litigant in person.
 

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll