Askews Legal LLP Prevails in Procedural Dispute: Default Judgment and Costs Awarded

Askews Legal LLP has once again demonstrated its litigation acumen by securing a default judgment and costs order in favour of its client, following the dismissal of the Defendant’s procedural Applications.

The case centred on the Defendant’s repeated attempts to delay proceedings through successive Applications for extensions of time to file a Defence, alleging a requirement for CPR Part 18 responses from the Claimant before being able to plead the same. Despite having already benefited from a Consent Order extending the original deadline, the Defendant failed to comply and subsequently filed two Applications, both of which were procedurally and substantively flawed.

The court found that:

• The Defendant’s insistence that they required the Claimant to respond to Part 18 requests before being able to plead the Defence was misplaced and disproportionate, amounting to an attempt to delay proceedings and gain tactical advantage.
• The Claimant had responded to the Defendant’s Part 18 request in good faith and within the requested timeframe, demonstrating procedural fairness and cooperation.
• The Defendant’s Defence was ultimately filed late, even beyond the extended deadline the Defendant itself had sought, rendering the Applications academic.

The court, applying the test in Ahmad v Ouajjou [2022] EWHC 3087 (Comm), rejected the Defendant’s arguments and granted default judgment in favour of the Claimant, along with an award of costs, taking the view that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the court’s process in seeking an extension which was not a bona fide requirement.

We would like to thank Kuljeet Sandhu and Harvin Dhillon of Askews Legal LLP and our counsel Oliver Nunn of 3PB Barristers, who did an exceptional job in preparing and presenting the case in court with clarity, precision, and professionalism.