Kersten & Ors v Purvis [2018] EWHC 4002 (Comm) (28 August 2018)

Kersten & Ors v Purvis [2018] EWHC 4002 (Comm) (28 August 2018)

Judgment in default was set aside because the Claimant used the wrong procedure (request for judgment in a mixed claim), following the reasoning in Intense Investments. The Defendant's conduct, while problematic, did not justify awarding all costs to the Claimant. The Claimants were awarded 50% of their costs of the applications, reflecting partial success and the Defendant's conduct.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 4002 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Kersten; Claimant: Seyed Ali Fazeli; Claimant: Malcom Vaughan; Claimant: Kevin Washbourne; Claimant: Kourosh Manoucheri; Defendant: Stephen Graham Purvis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Costs Determination
Outcome
Default judgment set aside; costs order made
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Service of Process, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Service of Process Costs Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kersten

Claimant

Seyed Ali Fazeli

Claimant

Malcom Vaughan

Claimant

Kevin Washbourne

Claimant

Kourosh Manoucheri

Claimant

Stephen Graham Purvis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be set aside under CPR 13.2 or 13.3
  2. 2 Whether the claim form was validly served
  3. 3 Whether the use of a request for judgment in a mixed claim irrevocably abandons other claims

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment in default was set aside because the Claimant used the wrong procedure (request for judgment in a mixed claim), following the reasoning in Intense Investments. The Defendant's conduct, while problematic, did not justify awarding all costs to the Claimant. The Claimants were awarded 50% of their costs of the applications, reflecting partial success and the Defendant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Default judgment set aside; costs order made

Orders

  • Default judgment set aside
  • Claimants awarded 50% of their costs of the applications