Rushworth v Harvey [2016] EWHC 1386 (QB) (21 April 2016)

Rushworth v Harvey [2016] EWHC 1386 (QB) (21 April 2016)

Default judgment was not improperly entered as the defendant was required to file an acknowledgement of service despite procedural defects. However, the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the claimant's particulars disclosed no reasonable grounds for most of the claim. The only recoverable sum was the admitted airfare reimbursement.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1386 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Graham Rushworth; Defendant: Malcom Harvey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Hearing of Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Consideration of Merits
Outcome
Default judgment set aside; judgment for claimant for airfare only; remainder of claim struck out; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Quantum Meruit, Contract Formation, Procedural Irregularity
Civil Procedure Contract Law Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Quantum Meruit Contract Formation Procedural Irregularity

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Rushworth

Claimant

Malcom Harvey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Hearing of Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Consideration of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment was properly entered under CPR 12.3 and 59
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects in service justified setting aside judgment as of right
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim under CPR 13.3(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment was not improperly entered as the defendant was required to file an acknowledgement of service despite procedural defects. However, the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the claimant's particulars disclosed no reasonable grounds for most of the claim. The only recoverable sum was the admitted airfare reimbursement.

Court Disposition

Default judgment set aside; judgment for claimant for airfare only; remainder of claim struck out; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Default judgment set aside
  • Judgment for claimant for £350 airfare