Reachlocal UK Ltd & Anor v Bennett & Ors

Reachlocal UK Ltd & Anor v Bennett & Ors

The 1st Defendant's explanations for default were unconvincing, inconsistent, and involved admitted dishonesty to the court and solicitors, justifying refusal of relief from sanctions. The 3rd Defendant, despite concerns about his evidence, made some effort to respond and is a litigant in person; refusing relief would be disproportionate given the circumstances and the potential impact on freedom of expression.

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
Civil / Application for Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Application by 1st Defendant for relief from sanctions refused; application by 3rd Defendant allowed.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Default Judgment, Freedom of Expression, Litigants in Person, Interim Injunction, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Defamation Contract Law Relief From Sanctions Default Judgment Freedom of Expression Litigants in Person Interim Injunction +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

Civil / Application for Relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 3rd Defendants should be granted relief from sanctions for failing to file defences on time
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances justify lifting the debarring order against the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant's explanations for default were unconvincing, inconsistent, and involved admitted dishonesty to the court and solicitors, justifying refusal of relief from sanctions. The 3rd Defendant, despite concerns about his evidence, made some effort to respond and is a litigant in person; refusing relief would be disproportionate given the circumstances and the potential impact on freedom of expression.

Court Disposition

Application by 1st Defendant for relief from sanctions refused; application by 3rd Defendant allowed.

Orders

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