Simon Bain Building Services Limited v Jenna Cardone & Anor

Simon Bain Building Services Limited v Jenna Cardone & Anor

The Defendants, by making the Default Judgment Application and seeking to defend on the merits, submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and lost the right to challenge jurisdiction or validity of service. However, the Defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim, including on limitation and substantive grounds, and applied promptly to set aside the default judgments. Relief from sanctions is appropriate and the default judgments are set aside.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Bain Building Services Limited; Defendant: Ms Jenna Cardone; Defendant: Mr Kevin O’Keefe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Contract Dispute / Hearing of Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment, Challenge Jurisdiction, and Extend Time for Acknowledgement of Service
Outcome
Default judgments set aside; jurisdiction challenge dismissed; directions given for further conduct of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Limitation Periods, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Default Judgment Jurisdiction Service of Process Limitation Periods Relief From Sanctions

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Bain Building Services Limited

Claimant

Ms Jenna Cardone

Defendant

Mr Kevin O’Keefe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Contract Dispute / Hearing of Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment, Challenge Jurisdiction, and Extend Time for Acknowledgement of Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgments should be set aside under CPR 13.3
  2. 2 Whether the court should treat the applications as a challenge to jurisdiction under CPR Part 11
  3. 3 Whether the claim form was validly served

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants, by making the Default Judgment Application and seeking to defend on the merits, submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and lost the right to challenge jurisdiction or validity of service. However, the Defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim, including on limitation and substantive grounds, and applied promptly to set aside the default judgments. Relief from sanctions is appropriate and the default judgments are set aside.

Court Disposition

Default judgments set aside; jurisdiction challenge dismissed; directions given for further conduct of proceedings.

Orders

  • Default judgments entered on 16 March 2023 set aside.
  • Defendants to file a further acknowledgement of service within 7 days, if so advised, stating an intention to defend.