header-logo header-logo

Specified v unspecified

20 June 2014
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

I had understood that the CPR changed the law and entitled a claimant to liquidate general damages and make a specified claim which could lead to a default judgment for the specified sum rather than for an amount to be decided by the court. However, on several occasions deputies dealing with online money claims have without notice set aside judgments for specified sums which have included a general damages element on the ground that these were strictly unspecified claims and should not have been issued online. They have also struck out the claims and this I regard as way over the top. If they are right then I fancy that 75% of claims made on line should not have been so made. Am I wrong?

No. The received view when the CPR came into force was that the introduction of the specified claim enabled a claimant to claim, say, a fixed sum of £10,000 for damages for personal injury if he chose to do so and that enabled them to enter a default judgment for

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll