Author: Howard Tilney
Published: September 2, 2019
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 2 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
So was the recent outcome of our member’s application to set aside judgment made against it following its non-attendance at a small claims hearing back in March 2019.
Our member had not received notice of such hearing from the Court and so did not know of and or attend the final hearing of the matter, despite going to the time and effort to file a comprehensive defence.
Indeed, why would it have done that if it had no intention of attending the final hearing? Plainly, it would not and the Judge accepted its evidence on point.
In making his decision, the Judge considered CPR Part 27.11, i.e. was the application made within 14 days of service of the Judgment, which it was and the Judge noted that it passed the test under CPR Part 13 by being made promptly, in any event.
The Judge also considered the merits of the defence, which were found to be reasonable, not fanciful and offer real prospects of successfully defending the Claim.
Since both parties were keen to explore mediation, the Judge made a suitable direction to facilitate the same.
Our member now has the chance to fight on or do a deal, as it sees fit.