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 explanations for default were unconvincing, he lied to the court and solicitors, and failed to comply with other 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 seeking to defend against an injunction, relief from sanctions was granted.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2161 (QB)
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 / Post Default Judgment Application
Outcome
The 1st Defendant's application for relief from sanctions is refused; the 3rd Defendant's application is allowed.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Default Judgment, Freedom of Expression, Compliance With Court Orders, Litigants in Person
Civil Procedure Defamation Contract Law Human Rights Relief From Sanctions Default Judgment Freedom of Expression Compliance With Court Orders +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 11 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 / Post Default Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 3rd Defendants should be granted relief from sanctions for failing to serve defences within court deadlines
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances justify lifting the debarring order against the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant's explanations for default were unconvincing, he lied to the court and solicitors, and failed to comply with other 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 seeking to defend against an injunction, relief from sanctions was granted.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The 1st Defendant remains debarred from defending the action by order of Tugendhat J.
  • The 3rd Defendant is relieved from the sanction of a debarring order and may defend the action.