Almond & Ors v Medgolf Properties Ltd & Ors (2) [2015] EWHC 3281 (Comm) (19 May 2015)

Almond & Ors v Medgolf Properties Ltd & Ors (2) [2015] EWHC 3281 (Comm) (19 May 2015)

The claimants are entitled to default judgment and rescission of the contracts against the non-appearing developer defendants because the procedural requirements for default judgment are satisfied, the court has jurisdiction, and the claimants' pleaded case alleges the banks are not innocent third parties. The relief is discretionary but appropriate in these circumstances.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3281 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: Ian Almond & Others; Defendants: Medgolf Properties Limited & Others; Claimants: Lijana Armailaite & Others; Defendants: Third & Nineteenth Defendants in Case No. 2013-000541
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
Default judgment granted in favour of claimants against non-appearing developer defendants; rescission of contracts ordered.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Rescission of Contract, Jurisdiction, Assignment of Contract, Third Party Rights
Contract Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Rescission of Contract Jurisdiction Assignment of Contract Third Party Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Almond & Others

Claimants

Medgolf Properties Limited & Others

Defendants

Lijana Armailaite & Others

Claimants

Third & Nineteenth Defendants in Case No. 2013-000541

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to default judgment against non-appearing defendants
  2. 2 Whether rescission of contracts is appropriate where contracts have been assigned to third parties (banks)
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are entitled to default judgment and rescission of the contracts against the non-appearing developer defendants because the procedural requirements for default judgment are satisfied, the court has jurisdiction, and the claimants' pleaded case alleges the banks are not innocent third parties. The relief is discretionary but appropriate in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of claimants against non-appearing developer defendants; rescission of contracts ordered.

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to default judgment and rescission of contracts against non-appearing developer defendants.
  • Order to clarify that certain Dubai-based claimants do not apply for default judgment.