Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Setting aside judgment » Page 2

APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT & THE MITCHELL/DENTON PRINCIPLES: ANOTHER HIGH COURT CASE

November 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents, Statements of Case

There are now several cases that deal with how the “Mitchell/Denton” principles effect applications to have judgment set aside. In Robinson -v- Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough (Sir Michael Tugendhat 03/011.204 QB)* a default judgment was set aside on…

SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT, MITCHELL AND DENTON: THE COURT OF APPEAL'S VIEW

October 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

The question of how far the “Mitchell/Denton” principles apply to applications by defendants to set aside judgments was considered by the Court of Appeal in Regione Piemonte -v- Dexia Credop SpA [2014] EWCA Civ 1298.  It can be seen that these principles…

DENTON APPLIES TO APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS: HOCKLEY -v- NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE CONSIDERED

October 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

The issue of whether the “Mitchell/Denton/CPR 3.9” criteria apply to applications by a defendant to set aside a default judgment has been discussed several times on this blog. In Hockley -v- North Lincolnshire &  Goole NHS Trust (19th September 2014)…

MORE ABOUT SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND CPR 3.9: NEWLAND -v- TOBA CONSIDERED

June 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The question of whether CPR 3.9 and the Mitchell criteria apply to applications to have judgment set aside is an issue that has been considered several times on this blog. In a decision yesterday Newland -v- Trading FZC (& other)…

YET MORE ON SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DELAY & PROMPTNESS

June 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of  Page -v- Champion Financial Ltd [2014] EWHC 1778 (QB) was discussed in an earlier post in relation to delays in applying to set judgment aside.  The case of Dalton -v- Cooper  [2014] EWHC 1556 (QB) was decided earlier, by…

SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: DELAY & PROMPTNESS

June 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

When setting aside a default judgment the court has to consider whether the application was made “promptly”. The relevance and importance of a “prompt” application has been considered several times on this blog.  The issue was considered again in Page…

PROMPTNESS AND APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT : THE BIG YELLOW VAN –V- RAYNER 27/05/2014 CONSIDERED

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

PROMPTNESS AND APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT : THE BIG YELLOW VAN –V- RAYNER (2014) IPEC (Judge Hacon) 27/05/2014 CONSIDERED  The importance of a prompt response to procedural issues and setting aside default judgment has been explored previously on this…

SERVICE BY E-MAIL: SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AFTER MITCHELL AND MUCH MORE: BRETT –V- COLCHESTER HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY CONSIDERED

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a considerable amount of interest in the judgment of Master O’Hare in this case. Firstly  was service by e-mail good service when a party had not complied with the Practice Direction on service by electric means? Secondly what…

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…

MASSIVE DELAY, SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND THE MITCHELL PRINCIPLES: MID-EAST SALES LTD –v- UNITED ENGINEERING & THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN CONSIDERED

May 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the many moot points that arise from Mitchell is how far the amendment to the overriding objective and CPR 3.9 impact upon applications to have judgment set aside.  This issue was considered by Burton J in Mid-East Sales…

← Previous 1 2

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • DOES AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMOUNT TO A “STEP IN THE ACTION” SO THAT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS DISPLACED? AN IMPORTANT QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL
  • WHEN POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT EMERGES – CAN A SOLICITOR SIMPLY CARRY ON AS BEFORE? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
  • CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 95: THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGE HAD AWARDED THE CLAIMANTS MORE THAN THEIR PLEADED CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 72: THE DEFENDANT HAD LEFT IT TOO LATE TO OBJECT TO THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT TRIAL NOT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING IT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: "THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION"
PROPORTIONALITY IN LITIGATION (1): A TEN POINT GUIDE FOR CIVIL LITIGATORS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND POSTS OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS
THE SRA CANNOT COMPEL A SOLICITOR TO DISCLOSE A CLIENT’S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop