Shobeiry v Patel [2023] EWHC 2549 (KB) (13 October 2023)

Shobeiry v Patel [2023] EWHC 2549 (KB) (13 October 2023)

The application to vary the default judgment failed because it was not made promptly and the Defendant did not meet the test for relief from sanctions. Although the judgment should have been entered in AED or the sterling equivalent stated in the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant's delay and procedural inefficiency outweighed any injustice from the judgment sum. The court would have varied the judgment to AED if the application had been prompt and relief from sanctions granted, but those conditions were not met.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2549 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Seyed Mohammad Ata Shobeiry; Defendant: Kalpesh Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Debt Enforcement / Recognition of Foreign Judgment / Application to Vary Default Judgment
Outcome
Defendant's application to vary the default judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Currency of Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Promptness in Applications, Exchange Rate Calculation
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Default Judgment Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Currency of Judgment Relief From Sanctions Promptness in Applications +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seyed Mohammad Ata Shobeiry

Claimant

Kalpesh Patel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Debt Enforcement / Recognition of Foreign Judgment / Application to Vary Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should have been entered in AED or sterling
  2. 2 Whether the judgment sum included double interest or used the wrong exchange rate
  3. 3 Whether the application to vary was made promptly and if relief from sanctions should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the default judgment failed because it was not made promptly and the Defendant did not meet the test for relief from sanctions. Although the judgment should have been entered in AED or the sterling equivalent stated in the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant's delay and procedural inefficiency outweighed any injustice from the judgment sum. The court would have varied the judgment to AED if the application had been prompt and relief from sanctions granted, but those conditions were not met.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to vary the default judgment refused.

Orders

  • Application to vary default judgment dismissed.
  • Default judgment in sterling stands.