Page v Champion Financial Managementltd & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR SIMON PICKEN QC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case addressed whether a default judgment obtained against one defendant precludes another defendant from presenting a defense inconsistent with that judgment. The court concluded that the Fifth Defendant is allowed to defend the claim against them by proving that the First Defendant was not negligent, despite the default judgment against the First Defendant. The decision hinges on public policy interests in allowing defendants to properly defend themselves, even at the risk of inconsistent judgments. The court also covered procedural issues regarding the setting aside of the default judgment.
Does a default judgment obtained against one defendant (defendant A) preclude another defendant in the same proceedings (defendant B) from advancing, by way of defence to a claim against it (defendant B), a case which is inconsistent with the default judgment which has been obtained (against defendant A)?
This is the question of principle which arises in the present case. I say right away that it is not the question which was framed by Master Yoxall, on 17 January 2014, as the preliminary issue which was listed to be tried. That preliminary issue was described as being “as to the operation and effect of . section 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ”
Mr Woolgar, on behalf of the Claimant, described this formulation of the preliminary issue, accurately in my view, as having been only intended to ‘signpost’ the issue to be tried. The parties were agreed before me that, as the existing formulation did not really capture the essence of what is in dispute between them, the preliminary issue should be amended in the manner suggested by the Claimant’s solicitors, Fenchurch Law Ltd (“Fenchurch”), in a letter to Hewitsons LLP (“Hewitsons”), the Fifth Defendant’s solicitors, dated 14 April 2014. Fenchurch proposed a revised wording as follows:
“the issue between the Claimant and the Fifth Defendant as to the effect of the default judgment against the First Defendant, and the operation and effect of . section 39 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 , on the right of the Fifth Defendant to defend the claim against it on the grounds that the First Defendant was neither negligent nor guilty of any breach of contract”
Having listened to the parties’ submissions, it seems to me that this reformulation is sensible and I propose to proceed in this judgment to determine the preliminary issue as so adapted rather than the preliminary issue which was directed by Master Yoxall. The revised preliminary issue entails what I have described as the question of principle above – a question on which, counsel told me, there is no authority, certainly no authority where the question has been the subject of full argument.
Relevant background
Before coming on to consider the parties’ respective submissions in relation both to the question of principle which I have identified, and an application by the Fifth Defendant to set aside the default judgment obtained against the First Defendant, I should firstly set out some background and deal also with the procedur