Watson v Bluemoor Properties Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1875 (10 December 2002)

Watson v Bluemoor Properties Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1875 (10 December 2002)

The defendant company satisfied all three cumulative requirements of CPR 39.3(5): it acted promptly, had a good reason for non-attendance, and its counterclaim had a reasonable prospect of success. The court's discretion should be exercised to allow the counterclaim to proceed, subject to conditions regarding interim payment and security for costs.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1875
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Irene Watson; Defendant/applicant: Bluemoor Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision on Application to Set Aside Order Striking Out Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Non Attendance, Representation of Companies in Litigation, Counterclaims in Property Disputes, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Company Law Setting Aside Judgment for Non Attendance Representation of Companies in Litigation Counterclaims in Property Disputes Costs Orders

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

Parties

Irene Watson

Claimant/respondent

Bluemoor Properties Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision on Application to Set Aside Order Striking Out Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant company satisfied the requirements of CPR 39.3(5) to set aside an order made in its absence
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim had a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the company acted promptly and had good reason for non-attendance

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant company satisfied all three cumulative requirements of CPR 39.3(5): it acted promptly, had a good reason for non-attendance, and its counterclaim had a reasonable prospect of success. The court's discretion should be exercised to allow the counterclaim to proceed, subject to conditions regarding interim payment and security for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of His Honour Judge Rich striking out the counterclaim set aside, subject to conditions.
  • Defendant company to make an interim payment of £10,000 on account of costs as a condition of reinstating the counterclaim.