header-logo header-logo

09 September 2016
Issue: 7713 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Judgments without particulars of claim

A claimant who has commenced a money claim on line may subsequently serve the particulars of claim but CPR PD 7E.11 requires the filing of a certificate of service of those particulars in form B215 within 14 days of service being effected. Why do the CPR or PD 7E not provide for the particulars of claim to be filed before judgment can be entered?

If the online claim form provided perfectly adequate and compliant particulars but went on to say that detailed particulars were to follow, would the defendant still be entitled to refrain from filing a defence until after those detailed particulars had been served? There is a case for the claimant to be required to file the particulars as well as the certificate so as to reduce the risk of a default judgment being entered when the particulars have not, in fact, been served. As things presently stand, it is possible for the claimant to state on the claim form that the particulars will follow and then proceed to procure

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