Default judgment

Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis

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.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

UK Supreme Court unveils new digital platform to modernise court processes

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) are set to launch new websites and a Case Management Portal on 4 December 2024. This digital transformation, part of a three year change programme, aims to revolutionise user interaction with the courts. The new system will enable digital filing of court documents, real-time case tracking and improved accessibility for all users, including litigants in person. The initiative, developed in collaboration with Capgemini and Q5, has undergone extensive user testing and is designed to enhance both judicial functions and educational outreach. This modernisation effort seeks to establish the UKSC and JCPC as world-leading, transparent and user-centric judicial institutions.

CJC concludes comprehensive review of pre-action protocols with publication of final report (phase two)

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has concluded its extensive review of pre-action protocols (PAPs) with the publication of its phase two report. The first phase of the final report, published in August 2023, examined the role of PAPs in the civil justice system and explored the potential for digitalising pre-action processes. The second phase was published in November 2024. In the second (and final) phase report the CJC has set out its recommendations for the reform of various existing PAPs, including those for Personal Injury, Housing, Judicial Review, Debt, Construction and Engineering, Professional Negligence and Media and Communications. The report also recommends the creation of two new PAPs, one for dealing with child abuse and one for Multi-Track Claims in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (with a draft included at Appendix 1).

175th Practice Direction update—in force 20 November 2024

The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have approved the 175th Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The amendments come into force on 20 November 2024.  The 175th PD update contains amendments to the online Damages Claims Pilot under CPR PD 51ZB (the DCP), in order to correct a misalignment between the rules in CPR PD 51ZB and the operation of the DCP digital service, concerning the automatic dismissal of claims. CPR PD 51ZB is updated to state so that within four months of the date of issue of the claim, the claimant must not only notify the defendant of the claim and the claim details, but also notify the DCP that they have taken these steps to avoid automatic dismissal of the claim.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: the Ministry of Justice’s annual report and accounts for the financial year 2023–2024 and the Supreme Court decision in Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others v Public and Commercial Services Union (Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))

Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))Strike out for abuse of process–basis of applicationUnder CPR 3.4(2)(b), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court ‘that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct

Strike out applications—what, who and when

Strike out applications—what, who and whenThis Practice Note considers who may bring an application to strike out a statement of case (or part of a statement of case), identifies the three grounds on which such application may be brought and timing issues as to when such an order may be made.What is

Strike out—no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a))

Strike out—no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a))Under CPR 3.4(2)(a), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court ‘that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim’.It is evident from this

Does a defendant require permission of the court to file a defence late (outside the agreed 28-day

Does a defendant require permission of the court to file a defence late (outside the agreed 28-day extension)?The general rule, set out in CPR 15.4(1) is that the period for serving a defence is:•14 days after service of the particulars of claim, or•if the defendant files an acknowledgment of
Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))

Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))

Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))Strike out for abuse of process–basis of applicationUnder CPR 3.4(2)(b), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court ‘that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct

Strike out applications—what, who and when

Strike out applications—what, who and when

Strike out applications—what, who and whenThis Practice Note considers who may bring an application to strike out a statement of case (or part of a statement of case), identifies the three grounds on which such application may be brought and timing issues as to when such an order may be made.What is

Strike out—no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a))

Strike out—no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a))

Strike out—no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a))Under CPR 3.4(2)(a), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court ‘that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim’.It is evident from this

Does a defendant require permission of the court to file a defence late (outside the agreed 28-day

Does a defendant require permission of the court to file a defence late (outside the agreed 28-day

Does a defendant require permission of the court to file a defence late (outside the agreed 28-day extension)?The general rule, set out in CPR 15.4(1) is that the period for serving a defence is:•14 days after service of the particulars of claim, or•if the defendant files an acknowledgment of