Samara v MBI & Partners UK Ltd (t/a M.B.I. International & Partners Co) & Ors

Samara v MBI & Partners UK Ltd (t/a M.B.I. International & Partners Co) & Ors

The court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second application under CPR 13.3 to set aside a default judgment after a final order and appeal have been determined. The issues raised are not new, there has been no material change of circumstances, and the application is an abuse of process. Even if there were jurisdiction, the application would fail due to inordinate and unexplained delay and the absence of any new evidence that could not have been raised earlier.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Samir Ramzi Samara; First Defendant/applicant: MBI & Partners UK Limited (t/a M. B. I. International & Partners Co) (t/a AJWA Group for Food Industries); Second Defendant: AJWA RMTI Co
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (employment/contract) / Ruling on Second Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Abuse of Process, Limitation, Jurisdiction, Fraud Allegations
Civil Procedure Employment Law Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Abuse of Process Limitation Jurisdiction Fraud Allegations

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samir Ramzi Samara

Claimant/respondent

MBI & Partners UK Limited (t/a M. B. I. International & Partners Co) (t/a AJWA Group for Food Industries)

First Defendant/applicant

AJWA RMTI Co

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (employment/contract) / Ruling on Second Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to consider a second application under CPR 13.3 to set aside default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the second application is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances or new evidence justifying setting aside the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second application under CPR 13.3 to set aside a default judgment after a final order and appeal have been determined. The issues raised are not new, there has been no material change of circumstances, and the application is an abuse of process. Even if there were jurisdiction, the application would fail due to inordinate and unexplained delay and the absence of any new evidence that could not have been raised earlier.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Second application by MBI & Partners UK Limited to set aside default judgment is dismissed as an abuse of process and for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Costs consequences not specified in the provided text.