Pincus v Singh & Anor [2023] EWHC 2997 (Ch) (26 October 2023)

Pincus v Singh & Anor [2023] EWHC 2997 (Ch) (26 October 2023)

The application to set aside the default judgments is refused because the defendants have not demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and the application was not made promptly as required by CPR 13.3(2). The evidence shows non-compliance with the injunction, substandard works, and delay. Procedural errors in obtaining judgment did not prejudice the defendants' position or justify setting aside the judgments.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2997 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pincus; First Defendant: Sandeep Singh Johal; Second Defendant: Freehold owner of 19 Milicent Road
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts / Application to Set Aside Default Judgments
Outcome
Application to set aside default judgments refused
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Injunctions, Right of Way, Damages, Promptness in Applications
Property Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Injunctions Right of Way Damages Promptness in Applications

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pincus

Claimant

Sandeep Singh Johal

First Defendant

Freehold owner of 19 Milicent Road

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts / Application to Set Aside Default Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgments against the defendants should be set aside under CPR 13.3(1)
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim
  3. 3 Whether the application to set aside was made promptly

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the default judgments is refused because the defendants have not demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and the application was not made promptly as required by CPR 13.3(2). The evidence shows non-compliance with the injunction, substandard works, and delay. Procedural errors in obtaining judgment did not prejudice the defendants' position or justify setting aside the judgments.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside default judgments refused

Orders

  • Default judgments against both defendants remain in force