MB v RBG

MB v RBG

The default judgment was wrongly entered because, as at the date of judgment, the defendant's acknowledgment of service had been filed, even if late. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds, was incoherent, unparticularised, and an abuse of process, warranting it being struck out. The applications to add parties, for committal, and for a freezing injunction were all totally without merit. The claimant had persistently issued meritless applications, justifying an extended Civil Restraint Order for two years.

Parties
Claimant: MB; Defendant: RBG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (homelessness/local Authority) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment, Strike Out Claim, Add Parties, Commit for Contempt, Freezing Injunction, and Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Claim struck out; default judgment set aside; all claimant's applications dismissed; extended Civil Restraint Order imposed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Striking Out Claims, Civil Restraint Orders, Committal for Contempt, Freezing Injunctions, Homelessness Applications
Civil Procedure Housing Law Local Government Law Default Judgment Striking Out Claims Civil Restraint Orders Committal for Contempt Freezing Injunctions +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MB

Claimant

RBG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (homelessness/local Authority) / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment, Strike Out Claim, Add Parties, Commit for Contempt, Freezing Injunction, and Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment against the defendant should be set aside under CPR 13.2 or 13.3
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses any reasonable grounds and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)
  3. 3 Whether additional parties should be joined to the claim under CPR 19.2

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was wrongly entered because, as at the date of judgment, the defendant's acknowledgment of service had been filed, even if late. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds, was incoherent, unparticularised, and an abuse of process, warranting it being struck out. The applications to add parties, for committal, and for a freezing injunction were all totally without merit. The claimant had persistently issued meritless applications, justifying an extended Civil Restraint Order for two years.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; default judgment set aside; all claimant's applications dismissed; extended Civil Restraint Order imposed.

Orders

  • Default judgment set aside under CPR 13.2
  • Claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds and being an abuse of process