Page v Champion Financial Managementltd & Ors

Page v Champion Financial Managementltd & Ors

A default judgment obtained against one defendant does not preclude another defendant in the same proceedings from advancing, by way of defence, a case inconsistent with the default judgment, unless the doctrine of res judicata applies. Public policy favouring consistency of judgments is outweighed by the right of co-defendants to defend themselves.

Parties
Claimant: John Page; First Defendant: Champion Financial Management Limited; Second Defendant: Champion Business Solutions Limited; Third Defendant: Champion Consulting Limited; Fourth Defendant: Champion Accountants LLP; Fifth Defendant: Park Row Associates Limited (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Claimant's argument rejected; Fifth Defendant may defend claim on grounds inconsistent with default judgment.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Section 39 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Professional Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Res Judicata
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Section 39 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Professional Negligence Vicarious Liability Res Judicata

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Page

Claimant

Champion Financial Management Limited

First Defendant

Champion Business Solutions Limited

Second Defendant

Champion Consulting Limited

Third Defendant

Champion Accountants LLP

Fourth Defendant

Park Row Associates Limited (in liquidation)

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a default judgment against one defendant preclude another defendant from advancing a defence inconsistent with that judgment in the same proceedings?
  2. 2 Operation and effect of section 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on liability of principal for acts of appointed representative

Ratio Decidendi

A default judgment obtained against one defendant does not preclude another defendant in the same proceedings from advancing, by way of defence, a case inconsistent with the default judgment, unless the doctrine of res judicata applies. Public policy favouring consistency of judgments is outweighed by the right of co-defendants to defend themselves.

Court Disposition

Claimant's argument rejected; Fifth Defendant may defend claim on grounds inconsistent with default judgment.

Orders

  • It is open to the Fifth Defendant to defend the claim against it on the grounds that the First Defendant was neither negligent nor guilty of any breach of contract notwithstanding the default judgment against the First Defendant.
  • Had the question of principle been decided differently, the default judgment would have been set aside under CPR 13.3, but not under CPR 3.3.