Judicial Review

[BACK OF THE NET]

Had you had a judgment by default been entered it seems likely that the defendants would simply have applied to set aside and prolonged things further.

Did the court order you re-serve the Particulars ? and did the defendants then file and serve their defence ? and what happened/is happening with the case ?

Yes the Court ruled that the particulars of claim be set from a different date after agreeing that they had not received them, which evidently they did, agreeing to further extend another 14 days to file a defence.

However and for a second time they failed to file a defence, which means that on two occasions now they have failed to file a defence..

The High Court and without notification then transferred proceedings after and for a second time I requested judgment in default because no defence had been filed.

That application has also been ignored by the Court as well.

[BACK OF THE NET]

If I understand your writing, you issued a claim in the High Court.
The defendant failed to file a defence.
You applied for judgment in default.
Judgment in default was not granted.
You applied for judicial review of that decision.
The Administrative Court held it had no jurisdiction to carry out that review.

Is your claim in the High Court still ‘live’ or has a judgment of the High Court issued?
If the latter, what was the judgment?

That is all correct of the chronology of events as you have stated.

The proceedings were transferred to the County Court and the Def made application to strike my claim out, this despite on two previous occasions not being able to provide a defence.

The very fact that they could not provide a legitimate contract as to be able to be in a position as to be able to legally represent me was the most damming fact why they could not provide a defence.

[Amethyst]

They've applied to strike out your claim instead of entering a defence - they can do that and an application puts a bar on your obtaining a default judgment.

Has a hearing been set for the strike out application as yet or are you waiting for directions ? Did the defendants send a copy of the strike app to you ? What are their grounds ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

I would have assumed that an application to strike a claim out would have had to have been made before the Court failed to enter summary judgment × 2, and not after.

[BACK OF THE NET]

So and giving the facts that have now been giving could someone kindly advise that the Court staff who have considered the application to seek an emergency judicial review are right or not right to adjudge this hearing is out of their jutisdiction.

[EXC]

So and giving the facts that have now been giving could someone kindly advise that the Court staff who have considered the application to seek an emergency judicial review are right or not right to adjudge this hearing is out of their jutisdiction.

They're right.

[BACK OF THE NET]

Who is right, and why are they right?

The Court, and in particular its clerical staff have failed in their obligation and statutory duty not only to follow procedures they have fabricated these proceedings, just one example being that they have transfered proceedings, and not in a legitimate manner.

[Amethyst]

If the other side have made an application then the case will be transferred so directions can be given or a hearing held.

The claimants have applied to strike out your claim rather than defend it at this stage, if they fail they will be ordered to file their defence, you may be ordered to amend / further particularise your statement of case before they do that, or they may succeed and your case will be struck out.

The court has discretion in these matters.

As I said previously had you obtained your default judgment it is likely the other side would simply have applied to set it aside ( and probably also to strike out the claim ).

I'd concentrate on your actual claim and defending their strike out application than arguing about procedure.
What reasons have they given to request a strike ?

[EXC]

Who is right, and why are they right?

The court is right in that they don't have the jurisdiction to Judicially Review another court. Only certain public bodies can be challenged by Judicial Review and the courts are not one of them.

[BACK OF THE NET]

The fact still remains that the Court failed and in their obligation (a) to ignore a legitimate request to consider entering judgment in default (b) entering judgment in default under CPR, as should have been the case.

They and the Courts have and are still acting as if summary judgment was entered, it was not.

[Amethyst]

What's the current position with the strike out application ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

The Court has struck my claim out.

[Amethyst]

Right - at least we know where you're at with things, how long ago was that ? and did you make submissions to counter their application / attend the hearing ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

The Order was made about two weeks ago and in the County Court, I did not present any evidence nor did I attend.

I was of the opinion that again this was an abuse of process and informed the otherside that I would not be attending their application,as to save costs and time for an application that would supersede the judgment in default should have been entered months earlier, when proceedings were within the High Court.

Hope this helps Amethyst.

There was no reason why the judgment in default of a Defence not being provided, should not have been entered by the Court in my humble opinion.

The Court have allowed the solicitors the opportunity to win the case, but they have not allowed me that same right.

[BACK OF THE NET]

Can someone kindly confirm that there are absolutely no legal rights as to seeking an emergency judicial review if a Court or its employees fail to the the proccess to (a) initite, (b) consider such application.

It has been suggested in this thread that Courts would be immune from being subject to a judicial review, kindly advise.