header-logo header-logo

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

The race is on

If a defendant is late in filing their defence to a CPR Pt 7 claim but before the claimant has requested a default judgment, does the defendant require an extension of time from the court in order to fend off a subsequent default judgment request?

A late defence will beat a request for judgment in default of defence. Provided the defendant gets in first with the filing of their defence, they will not be prejudiced by being out of time. The better view is that CPR 15.5 which describes the period it specifies for the filing of a defence as the “general rule” does not require the court’s relief from sanction under CPR 3.9 where the defence is late. However, it would be wise for a defendant who is or will be out of time time to apply to the court for an extension so as to head off a default judgment which would necessitate an application to have it set aside but they would have to show that their defence was bona fide

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