Default judgment

A default judgment or judgment in default is a judgment entered without trial where a defendant has failed to respond to a claim. It is an administrative procedure which means judgment is entered without consideration of the merits of the claim.

Default judgments are dealt with under CPR 12 and there are a number of conditions which must be satisfied before the court will enter judgment:

  1. the defendant must have been properly served with the claim

  2. the defendant must not have responded to the claim, whether by acknowledgment of service or defence, and

  3. the relevant time period for responding must have expired

Where the conditions are satisfied, the claimant can apply for a default judgment to be entered. The application can either be by way of simple request or by formal application under CPR 23. The appropriate procedure will depend on the type of claim and the method of service.

Default judgment is not available in every case.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Withholding DSAR documents from inspection during data protection proceedings by relying on a Data Protection Act 2018 exemption (Cole v Marlborough College)

Information Law analysis: This claim relates to the scope of production and the application of the exemptions to production of personal data in responding fully to a subject access request. The Claimant, Thomas Cole (Cole), who was a student at the Defendant school, Marlborough College (the College), submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) under Article 15 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) after he was removed from the school following his involvement in a physical altercation with another student. In this half-day case management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin assessed whether the College was entitled to withhold, in whole or part, documents containing Cole’s personal data, rather than providing the material for inspection ahead of a two-day trial on the data protection claim expected to start in mid-2025. The court held that the College was entitled to withhold some documents (containing Cole’s personal data) on the grounds of the exemption in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In short, this exemption provides that a controller is not obliged to disclose information to a data subject where doing so involves disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified from that information, whether as the source of information or as the subject of such information. Written by Robyn Bond, associate at Ropes & Gray International LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents