Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The appellant appeared (by remote video link) in person The respondents did not attend the hearing Hearing date: 17 November 2023 ____________________
(1) The judge wrongly classified the respondents as "vulnerable parties" within the meaning of Practice Direction 1A, and, as a result, wrongly concluded that the respondents had to be given an opportunity to be heard.
(2) The judge wrongly invoked the court's general case management power to direct the appellant to make an application and to hold a hearing. That power only arises where the rules do not provide otherwise. CPR 12.4 and 12.5 provide otherwise.
(3) The judge wrongly considered that where a request for default judgment is made in a defamation or harassment claim, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the statement of case to determine whether the claimant suffered serious harm.
(4) The judge misconstrued the meaning of "specified amount" in CPR 12.5(2), and erroneously interpreted that expression to mean "liquidated claim" in the sense used in the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.