SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AFTER MITCHELL: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST?

May 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There has been much discussion of whether the Mitchell principles impact upon an application have a default judgment set aside. There are some cases that indicate that the amended CPR 3.9 should be taken into account in relation to a delay in applying to set judgment aside. I am grateful to Richar...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Appeal, Civil Procedure Rules, CPR 3.9, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment

2 Responses

Simon Dewsbury · May 22, 2014 at 08:23:56 · →

Another example of judges being uncertain when 3.9 applies and when it does not; I doubt that the introduction of 3.8(4), welcome though it is, will stop the flow of cases probing the unforeseen effects of Mitchell.
Is this case being reported? It’s not clear from the report which court it was heard in.
gexall · May 22, 2014 at 08:48:39 · →

It was in the Reading County Court. It is unusual for county court decisions to be reported which is why I have set the judgment out in full above.