MB v RBG [2020] EWHC 3022 (QB) (17 September 2020)

MB v RBG [2020] EWHC 3022 (QB) (17 September 2020)

The default judgment was wrongly entered as the acknowledgment of service had been filed before judgment, 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's persistent meritless applications justified an extended civil restraint order.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3022 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: MB; Defendant: RBG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Multiple Applications Including to Set Aside Default Judgment, Strike Out Claim, Add Parties, Committal 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 against claimant for two years.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Striking Out Claims, Civil Restraint Orders, Homelessness Duties, Committal for Contempt, Freezing Injunctions
Civil Procedure Housing Law Public Law Default Judgment Striking Out Claims Civil Restraint Orders Homelessness Duties Committal for Contempt +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MB

Claimant

RBG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Multiple Applications Including to Set Aside Default Judgment, Strike Out Claim, Add Parties, Committal for Contempt, Freezing Injunction, and Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment against defendant should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses any reasonable grounds and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether additional parties should be joined

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was wrongly entered as the acknowledgment of service had been filed before judgment, 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's persistent meritless applications justified an extended civil restraint order.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; default judgment set aside; all claimant's applications dismissed; extended civil restraint order imposed against claimant for two years.

Orders

  • Default judgment set aside
  • Claim struck out as totally without merit