Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson [2018] EWHC 2030 (QB) (31 July 2018)

Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson [2018] EWHC 2030 (QB) (31 July 2018)

The Defendant was properly served by alternative methods and had actual or constructive knowledge of the proceedings. His explanations for non-attendance and lack of knowledge were not credible. The Defendant was responsible for the website and publications. There was no good reason to set aside the default judgment or committal orders, and the applications for re-hearing and to set aside were dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2030
Parties
Claimant: Pirtek (UK) Limited; Defendant: Robert Jackson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Committal for Contempt; Re Hearing Application
Outcome
Applications to set aside and for re-hearing dismissed; previous orders and findings stand.
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Default Judgment, Committal for Contempt, Jurisdiction, Re Hearing Applications
Defamation Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Libel Service of Process Default Judgment Committal for Contempt Jurisdiction +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pirtek (UK) Limited

Claimant

Robert Jackson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Committal for Contempt; Re Hearing Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was properly served and had knowledge of the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment and committal orders should be set aside or re-heard
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was responsible for the defamatory website and publications

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was properly served by alternative methods and had actual or constructive knowledge of the proceedings. His explanations for non-attendance and lack of knowledge were not credible. The Defendant was responsible for the website and publications. There was no good reason to set aside the default judgment or committal orders, and the applications for re-hearing and to set aside were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside and for re-hearing dismissed; previous orders and findings stand.

Orders

  • Default judgment and committal orders remain in force.
  • Defendant remains liable for damages and costs.