Reachlocal UK Ltd & Anor v Bennett & Ors [2014] EWHC 2161 (QB) (03 July 2014)

Reachlocal UK Ltd & Anor v Bennett & Ors [2014] EWHC 2161 (QB) (03 July 2014)

The 1st Defendant's breaches were serious, his explanations were unconvincing and untruthful, and he failed to comply with other court directions; relief from sanctions was refused. The 3rd Defendant, though his evidence was questionable, made some effort to comply and as a litigant in person should be granted relief; the debarring order was lifted for him.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2161
Parties
Claimant: ReachLocal UK Ltd; Claimant: ReachLocal Europe BV; Defendant: Jamie Bennett; Defendant: Craig Anderson; Defendant: Hardeep Singh Khabra; Defendant: Tracy Vennard; Defendant: Your Online Digital Agency Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief From Sanctions in Civil Proceedings / Post Pleadings, Interlocutory Application
Outcome
1st Defendant's application for relief from sanctions refused; 3rd Defendant's application allowed.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Default Judgment, Freedom of Expression, Litigants in Person, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Defamation Contract Tort Relief From Sanctions Default Judgment Freedom of Expression Litigants in Person +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ReachLocal UK Ltd

Claimant

ReachLocal Europe BV

Claimant

Jamie Bennett

Defendant

Craig Anderson

Defendant

Hardeep Singh Khabra

Defendant

Tracy Vennard

Defendant

Your Online Digital Agency Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief From Sanctions in Civil Proceedings / Post Pleadings, Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 3rd Defendants should be granted relief from sanctions for failure to serve defences on time
  2. 2 Whether the debarring order should be lifted for either defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant's breaches were serious, his explanations were unconvincing and untruthful, and he failed to comply with other court directions; relief from sanctions was refused. The 3rd Defendant, though his evidence was questionable, made some effort to comply and as a litigant in person should be granted relief; the debarring order was lifted for him.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant's application for relief from sanctions refused; 3rd Defendant's application allowed.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant remains debarred from defending the action.
  • 3rd Defendant granted relief from sanctions and permitted to defend the action.