Justice Investments Ltd v Visalia Enegia SL (t/a Nace) [2024] EWHC 815 (KB) (19 February 2024)

Justice Investments Ltd v Visalia Enegia SL (t/a Nace) [2024] EWHC 815 (KB) (19 February 2024)

Default judgment is appropriate against the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants as the claims against them can be dealt with separately from those against the First and Second Defendants, and granting such judgment does not prejudice the latter. However, as the claims are for unspecified sums in tort, judgment is for damages to be assessed, not for specified sums.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 815 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Justice Investments Ltd; First Defendant: Visalia Enegía SL t/a NACE; Third Defendant: Pablo Abejas Garcia; Third Defendant: Alejandro Ortega Herrero; Fourth Defendant: Carmen Doncel Rodriguez; Fifth Defendant: Felpugos Abejas SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (king's Bench Division) / Application for Default Judgment Against Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants
Outcome
Default judgment granted against Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants for damages to be assessed; not binding on First and Second Defendants.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Deceit, Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Damages Assessment
Civil Procedure Tort Law Default Judgment Deceit Conspiracy Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damages Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justice Investments Ltd

Claimant

Visalia Enegía SL t/a NACE

First Defendant

Pablo Abejas Garcia

Third Defendant

Alejandro Ortega Herrero

Third Defendant

Carmen Doncel Rodriguez

Fourth Defendant

Felpugos Abejas SL

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (king's Bench Division) / Application for Default Judgment Against Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be granted against Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants despite proceedings being stayed against First and Second Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claims are for specified or unspecified sums for the purpose of default judgment
  3. 3 Whether granting default judgment would prejudice First and Second Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment is appropriate against the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants as the claims against them can be dealt with separately from those against the First and Second Defendants, and granting such judgment does not prejudice the latter. However, as the claims are for unspecified sums in tort, judgment is for damages to be assessed, not for specified sums.

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted against Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants for damages to be assessed; not binding on First and Second Defendants.

Orders

  • Default judgment entered against Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants for damages to be assessed.
  • Claimant to serve witness statement and legal submissions by specified date.