Mohun -Smith v TBO Investments Ltd
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE SEYMOUR QC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves TBO Investments Ltd's application to set aside a default judgment made after they failed to appear for trial on 30th June 2014. Their informal application for an adjournment based on a representative's stress-related illness was deemed inadequate. The defendant failed to act promptly and lacked sufficient reason for non-attendance. The court upheld the judgment and dismissed the application. This decision emphasized the strict requirements under Part 39.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules for setting aside a judgment.
JUDGMENT
HHJ SEYMOUR:
The application before the Court is an application on behalf of the defendant, TBO Investments Ltd, pursuant to Part 39.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking an order setting aside the judgment and order which I made on 30 th June of this year in this action.
The 30 th June was supposed to be the first day of the trial. On that occasion, the defendant did not appear and was not represented and I proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Part 39.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, I struck out the defence of the defendant and entered judgment for the claimant.
There was before me on 30 th June what I think is politely described as an informal application for an adjournment. The application, such as it was, was contained in a letter dated 30 th June 2014 written by a firm of solicitors called Shakespeares which had previously been acting on behalf of the defendants. The letter from Shakespeares was addressed to the listing office of the Queen’s Bench Division of this Court and said this:
‘We were on record at the Court as acting on behalf of the Defendant until notice of change was filed on 12 June 2014 confirming that the Defendant, acting through its representative, Scott Robinson, would now…’ I think it should say, ‘be...’ ‘…representing itself in these proceedings.
We are informed that the trial in the above matter is commencing today (30 June 2014) at 2:00pm before His Honour Judge Seymour QC.
We have today received the attached letter from David McLaughlin of the Defendant and have been asked to provide a copy of the same to the Court for consideration.
In the light of the circumstances set out within that letter, the Defendant has asked that the Court consider an adjournment to the trial.
As the trial is listed to commence today, please could you ensure that the enclosed letter and statement of fitness to work is placed before His Honour Judge Seymour QC for consideration as soon as possible.’
There are then some contact details which I need not recite.
4. The letter of Mr McLaughlin which is referred to is also dated 30 th June 2014 and is addressed to Mr Mark Beesley at Shakespeares. What the letter says is this:
‘The Trial Window is now into its second week and on Friday (27 th June), Mr Robinson was obliged to attend his GP practice for a Medical assessment, due to the arising stress and pressure of the pending proceedings.’
Words which perhaps are of significance:
‘Following that appointmen