Hackney v Driscoll

Hackney v Driscoll

Where a defendant had notice of the proceedings and participated but did not receive notice of the trial date, the court is not obliged to set aside the judgment as of right; it must apply the criteria in CPR 39.3(5), including whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: London Borough of Hackney; Defendant/appellant: Robert Driscoll
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Order Refusing to Set Aside Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments, Possession Proceedings, Notice Requirements, Mortgage Arrears
Civil Procedure Property Law Setting Aside Judgments Possession Proceedings Notice Requirements Mortgage Arrears

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

Parties

London Borough of Hackney

Claimant/respondent

Robert Driscoll

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Order Refusing to Set Aside Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant who had notice of proceedings but not of the trial date is entitled as of right to have a possession order set aside
  2. 2 Whether the court must consider the defendant's prospects of success under CPR 39.3(5)

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant had notice of the proceedings and participated but did not receive notice of the trial date, the court is not obliged to set aside the judgment as of right; it must apply the criteria in CPR 39.3(5), including whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order refusing to set aside possession order upheld