1999/156 - Mayo Associates and Ors v Anagram and Young [1999] UR 156 (16 September 1999)

1999/156 - Mayo Associates and Ors v Anagram and Young [1999] UR 156 (16 September 1999)

The court refused to enter final judgment in default against the first and third Defendants immediately after their Answers were struck out for non-compliance, allowing them an opportunity to be heard, and permitted Dr. Young to address the court on their behalf as an indulgence to avoid injustice to unrepresented parties.

Citation
[1999] UR 156
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: First Defendant (company incorporated in Bermuda); Defendant: Dr. Young (Second Defendant); Defendant: Third Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Applications for judgment adjourned; requests for default judgment against first and third Defendants refused at this stage; Dr. Young allowed to address the court for first and third Defendants on this occasion only.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Representation of Unrepresented Parties, Striking Out Pleadings, Affidavit of Documents
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Representation of Unrepresented Parties Striking Out Pleadings Affidavit of Documents

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

First Defendant (company incorporated in Bermuda)

Defendant

Dr. Young (Second Defendant)

Defendant

Third Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against first and third Defendants for failure to furnish affidavits of documents
  2. 2 Whether Dr. Young (second Defendant) could address the court on behalf of the first and third Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to enter final judgment in default against the first and third Defendants immediately after their Answers were struck out for non-compliance, allowing them an opportunity to be heard, and permitted Dr. Young to address the court on their behalf as an indulgence to avoid injustice to unrepresented parties.

Court Disposition

Applications for judgment adjourned; requests for default judgment against first and third Defendants refused at this stage; Dr. Young allowed to address the court for first and third Defendants on this occasion only.

Orders

  • Applications for judgment adjourned to 7 October
  • Final judgment in default against first and third Defendants refused at this stage