Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson

Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson

The Defendant was properly served, had full knowledge of the proceedings, deliberately chose not to engage, and was responsible for the website publications. He has no defence on the merits and no credible explanation for his absence. The applications for re-hearing and to set aside are dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Pirtek (UK) Limited; Defendant: Robert Jackson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Application for Re Hearing and Committal
Outcome
Applications for re-hearing and to set aside dismissed; Defendant found responsible for website publications and in contempt of court.
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Default Judgment, Committal for Contempt, Jurisdiction, Civil Restraint Orders
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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pirtek (UK) Limited

Claimant

Robert Jackson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment, Application for Re Hearing and Committal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was properly served and had knowledge of the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was responsible for the website publications
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant should be granted a re-hearing of the default judgment and committal applications

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was properly served, had full knowledge of the proceedings, deliberately chose not to engage, and was responsible for the website publications. He has no defence on the merits and no credible explanation for his absence. The applications for re-hearing and to set aside are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for re-hearing and to set aside dismissed; Defendant found responsible for website publications and in contempt of court.

Orders

  • Re-hearing and Fourth Applications dismissed
  • Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Application Notices dismissed