KD v Gaisford [2019] EWHC 3722 (QB) (23 October 2019)

KD v Gaisford [2019] EWHC 3722 (QB) (23 October 2019)

The defendant failed to demonstrate a good reason for non-attendance at trial, as he did not take reasonable steps to secure attendance or representation despite repeated notice. Even if present, his arguments on limitation and credibility would not have had a real prospect of success given the evidence and prior criminal conviction. The application to set aside judgment was therefore refused.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3722 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: KD; Defendant/applicant: Philip Gaisford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (sexual Assault, Damages) / Application to Set Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3(3)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Non Attendance at Trial, Sexual Assault, Limitation Period, Damages
Civil Procedure Tort Law Setting Aside Judgment Non Attendance at Trial Sexual Assault Limitation Period Damages

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

Parties

KD

Claimant/respondent

Philip Gaisford

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (sexual Assault, Damages) / Application to Set Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had a good reason for not attending trial under CPR 39.3(5)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant had a reasonable prospect of success at trial under CPR 39.3(5)(c)
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period should have barred the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate a good reason for non-attendance at trial, as he did not take reasonable steps to secure attendance or representation despite repeated notice. Even if present, his arguments on limitation and credibility would not have had a real prospect of success given the evidence and prior criminal conviction. The application to set aside judgment was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside judgment under CPR 39.3(3) refused