Workman v Forrester & Ors

Workman v Forrester & Ors

The court had jurisdiction to make the unless order in the form it did, including entering judgment for a quantified sum in default of compliance, given the appellant's persistent and flagrant non-compliance with disclosure orders. There was no procedural error or misdirection in law. The judge's discretion in refusing to relist the freezing order was properly exercised.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Garth Workman; Respondent: Carol Ann Forrester; Respondent: Nicholas Workman; Respondent: Benjamin Workman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Default Judgment, Freezing Orders, Damages Assessment, Forfeiture Rule
Civil Procedure Tort Law Family Law Unless Orders Default Judgment Freezing Orders Damages Assessment Forfeiture Rule

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

Parties

Ian Garth Workman

Appellant

Carol Ann Forrester

Respondent

Nicholas Workman

Respondent

Benjamin Workman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to make an 'unless order' entering judgment for a quantified sum in default of compliance in a claim for unliquidated damages without hearing evidence of loss
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was wrongly deprived of an inter partes hearing on the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to make the unless order in the form it did, including entering judgment for a quantified sum in default of compliance, given the appellant's persistent and flagrant non-compliance with disclosure orders. There was no procedural error or misdirection in law. The judge's discretion in refusing to relist the freezing order was properly exercised.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed
  • No order setting aside the unless order or relisting the freezing order