Farrer & Co LLP v Meyer [2022] EWHC 362 (QB) (26 January 2022)

Farrer & Co LLP v Meyer [2022] EWHC 362 (QB) (26 January 2022)

The default judgment was regular as service was valid under section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006; the defendant delayed in seeking to set aside the judgment and had no realistic prospect of defending the claim. Relief from sanctions for non-compliance with the disclosure order was refused due to lack of adequate explanation and insufficient evidence of risk under Swiss law. The defendant was found in contempt for continued non-compliance and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended on terms of compliance.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 362
Parties
Claimant: Farrer & Co LLP; Defendant: Julie Marie Meyer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Debt Claim for Unpaid Solicitors' Fees / Hearing on Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment, for Relief From Sanctions, and for Contempt
Outcome
Applications to set aside default judgment and for relief from sanctions refused; defendant found in contempt and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended on terms.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process, Relief From Sanctions, Contempt of Court, Solicitors' Fees, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Contract Law Default Judgment Service of Process Relief From Sanctions Contempt of Court Solicitors' Fees Disclosure Obligations

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farrer & Co LLP

Claimant

Julie Marie Meyer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Debt Claim for Unpaid Solicitors' Fees / Hearing on Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment, for Relief From Sanctions, and for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether relief from sanctions and extension of time for compliance with disclosure order should be granted
  3. 3 Whether defendant should be sanctioned for contempt for non-compliance with disclosure order

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was regular as service was valid under section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006; the defendant delayed in seeking to set aside the judgment and had no realistic prospect of defending the claim. Relief from sanctions for non-compliance with the disclosure order was refused due to lack of adequate explanation and insufficient evidence of risk under Swiss law. The defendant was found in contempt for continued non-compliance and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended on terms of compliance.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside default judgment and for relief from sanctions refused; defendant found in contempt and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended on terms.

Orders

  • Application to set aside default judgment refused
  • Application for relief from sanctions and extension of time refused