Murphy v. Burke

Murphy v. Burke

To grant default judgment without a judge assessing damages the pleadings must, taken as admitted, clearly show the amount is due; a subrogated payment by an insurer does not by itself establish that the specific amount is due from the defendant. Applying that test, the pleadings in Murphy v. Burke met Rule 8.06(b) but the pleadings in Crouse v. Sparks and Oldford v. Rector did not.

Citation
2014 NSSC 359
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Murphy; Defendant: Clayton Burke; Plaintiff: Karen Crouse; Defendant: Jacob Sparks; Plaintiff: Matthew Oldford; Defendant: Kevin Rector
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Motion for Default Judgment Arising From Subrogated Tort Claims / Reference by Prothonotary Under Rule 30.01(3) to Determine Compliance With Rule 8.06(b) Whether Assessment of Damages Is Required
Outcome
Default judgment without assessment allowed in Murphy v. Burke; default judgment without assessment denied in Crouse v. Sparks and Oldford v. Rector.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Liquidated Demand, Assessment of Damages, Rule 8.06(b), Pleading Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Tort Subrogation Default Judgment Liquidated Demand Assessment of Damages Rule 8.06(b) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Murphy

Plaintiff

Clayton Burke

Defendant

Karen Crouse

Plaintiff

Jacob Sparks

Defendant

Matthew Oldford

Plaintiff

Kevin Rector

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Default Judgment Arising From Subrogated Tort Claims / Reference by Prothonotary Under Rule 30.01(3) to Determine Compliance With Rule 8.06(b) Whether Assessment of Damages Is Required

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pleadings satisfy Rule 8.06(b) so a prothonotary may grant default judgment without a judge assessing damages
  2. 2 Whether a subrogated payment by an insurer constitutes a 'liquidated demand' or otherwise clearly shows the amount is due by the defendant
  3. 3 Which types of unliquidated claims can be pleaded to clearly show the amount is due

Ratio Decidendi

To grant default judgment without a judge assessing damages the pleadings must, taken as admitted, clearly show the amount is due; a subrogated payment by an insurer does not by itself establish that the specific amount is due from the defendant. Applying that test, the pleadings in Murphy v. Burke met Rule 8.06(b) but the pleadings in Crouse v. Sparks and Oldford v. Rector did not.

Court Disposition

Default judgment without assessment allowed in Murphy v. Burke; default judgment without assessment denied in Crouse v. Sparks and Oldford v. Rector.

Orders

  • Pleadings in Murphy v. Burke meet Rule 8.06(b) — prothonotary may enter default judgment without referral for assessment of damages.
  • Pleadings in Crouse v. Sparks do not meet Rule 8.06(b) — assessment required; prothonotary must refer to a judge.