Majid Saadati v Seye Dastghaib and Andreas Rudolf Bihrer [2024] EWHC 3336 (KB) - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
21/01/25. Date of judgment: 20 December 2024.
Practitioners making hasty applications for default judgment ought to keep in mind the law of unexpected consequences. Applications for judgment in default, when not made properly, run the risk of being re-heard again and again (and again) as Saadati v Dastghaib illustrates.
Introduction
The judgment of Morris J follows a rolled-up appeal hearing challenging an order of Deputy Master Sabic KC (“the Deputy Master”) to set aside an earlier order of judgment in default made by Master Thornett (“the Master”) amongst other issues. The underlying claim concerned a loan of USD $15 million alleged to have been made by the Claimant in late 2013 for the benefit of both Defendants in relation to property development in London. The appeal judge’s handling of the application for judgment in default and the guidance he gives distinguishing applications under rule 13.2 versus 13.3 of the CPR are likely to assist practitioners applying to set aside default judgments or responding to such applications.
Default judgment and service
The court reminds practitioners of the important provisions outside Part 13 itself. By rule 24.4 where a party applies for default judgment before a defence is filed, the defending party does not need to serve its defence until the hearing of the application. By rule 3.3 the court may exercise its case management powers to make an order of...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Farknot_Architect
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
