The Lord Chancellor (as Successor to the Legal Services Comission) v Halberstadt-Twum (t/a Cleveland Solicitors) & Anor [2021] EWHC 413 (QB) (01 March 2021)

The Lord Chancellor (as Successor to the Legal Services Comission) v Halberstadt-Twum (t/a Cleveland Solicitors) & Anor [2021] EWHC 413 (QB) (01 March 2021)

The Defendants failed to act promptly in applying to set aside the default judgment, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, and did not demonstrate a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The judgment was regular and properly entered. The application to set aside or vary the default judgment is refused.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 413
Parties
Claimant: The Lord Chancellor (as Successor to the Legal Services Commission); First Defendant: Astrid Halberstadt-Twum (t/a Cleveland Solicitors); Second Defendant: Joseph Twum
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside or Vary Default Judgment
Outcome
Application to set aside or vary default judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Breach of Contract, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Representation, Promptness in Applications
Civil Procedure Contract Law Fraud Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Breach of Contract Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Rules +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Lord Chancellor (as Successor to the Legal Services Commission)

Claimant

Astrid Halberstadt-Twum (t/a Cleveland Solicitors)

First Defendant

Joseph Twum

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside or Vary Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment entered against the Defendants should be set aside or varied under CPR 13.3
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants acted promptly in making the application to set aside
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to act promptly in applying to set aside the default judgment, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, and did not demonstrate a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The judgment was regular and properly entered. The application to set aside or vary the default judgment is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside or vary default judgment refused.

Orders

  • Default judgment against both Defendants stands.
  • No variation or setting aside of the judgment.