Meyer v Baynes

Meyer v Baynes

The defence advanced by Mr Meyer did not constitute exceptional circumstances under CPR rule 13.3(2) as it was not a knock out point and did not provide a compelling reason to set aside the default judgment. The Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation and application of the rule and in exercising its control over leave to appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Meyer; Respondent: Baynes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Privy Council
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Exceptional Circumstances, Breach of Statutory Duty, Vicarious Liability, Leave to Appeal

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meyer

Appellant

Baynes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Privy Council

  1. 1 Whether the defence advanced by Mr Meyer amounted to exceptional circumstances under CPR rule 13.3(2) warranting setting aside a default judgment
  2. 2 Whether Mr Meyer had an appeal to the Board as of right under section 122(1)(a) of The Antigua and Barbuda Constitution Order 1981

Ratio Decidendi

The defence advanced by Mr Meyer did not constitute exceptional circumstances under CPR rule 13.3(2) as it was not a knock out point and did not provide a compelling reason to set aside the default judgment. The Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation and application of the rule and in exercising its control over leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent’s costs of the appeal to the Board, subject to written submissions within 14 days.