DEFENDANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL IN HIS APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE UNDER CPR 13.3, NAMELY ON “SOME OTHER GOOD REASON” AND RECOVERED COSTS OF £2,500 AGAINST CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED.

In Civil Enforcment Limtied v T Chan,  His Honour Murch allowed an appeal, strike out the claim and ordered costs against the Respondent because the Particulars of  claim did not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Pratice Direction 7.5

The claim concerned an unpaid parking charge pursued against our client, Mr Chan (“the Appellant”)   The alleged contravention took place on 06/11/2017.  As the charge remained unpaid, proceedings were issued and a default judgement was obtained against him because he did not respond to the claim form.

On 31/02/2022, the Appellant became aware of the default judgement and contacted us for assistance.  After reviewed his case and evidence,  we recommended him  to instruct our solicitor partner for an application aside under CPR 13.3.

The application was made promptly but dismissed by District Judge Chataway because the Court took the view that there was no real prospect of defending the claim.

the basic provisions for setting aside a default judgment under the discretionary grounds are set out at CPR r 13.3

CPR r 13.(3) provides:

the court may set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if

a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why –

(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or

(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

(2) In considering whether to set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

2) In considering whether to set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

 The Ground of Appeal

The grounds of appeal were inter alia that the lower court failed to apply the appropriate test under CPR r 13.3(1)(a) and (b).

During the hearing for permission to appeal it was argued on the behalf of the Appellant by Mr Jackson Yamba, that the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions under CPR 16.4(1)(e), Practice Direction 16 7.5 constituted other good reason to set aside the default judgement to set aside.  Reliance was place in Gulf International Bank BSC v Ekttitab Holding Co KSCC, 2010 WL 4503298 (2010).

Issue of the particulars of claim

 The claim form was issued online using the MCOL was drafted in the following terms:

Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 236.00 Violation date: 06/11/2017

Total due- 236.00 (Ref:www.ce-service.co.uk or Tel:01158225020) The Claimant claims the sum of 247.59 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 11.59 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 18/06/18 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to Judgment- 0.05 Total debt and interest due- 247.5

Submission

It was argued on behalf of the Appellant by Mr Jackson Yamba that the Particulars of claim were entirely inadequate; in that they failed to particularise (a) the contractual term relied upon, the specifics of the alleged breach of contract to allow the  Appellant on the basis of the Particulars within the claim form to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.

It was further submitted that in the event that it was impossible to properly set out the key part of the claim within the charact limit, then it was incumbent upon the Respondent to file and serve a separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days.

 The Court was directed to the guidance for completing Money Claim Online. The guidance clearly sated : “if you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the Defendant, tick  the box that appears after the statement ‘you may also send detailed particulars to the Defendant”

In response to the submission,  the Respondent argued the particulars of claim did not breach the rule.  In the alternative, the Respondent argued that if even there is breach, the Court should consider that a letter before claim was with details of the claim.

The Court was persuaded by the submission put forward by Mr Jackson Yamba on behalf of the Appellant. The Appeal Court took the view that a letter before claim cannot replace a statement of case and even to justify the failure to comply with the rule.

The Appeal was allowed, the claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) and costs of £2,500 were awarded against the Respondent.

The decision is clear reminder for many parking companies and their legal representatives that they are not exempted from complying with the rule.