Geoffrey Galley v Royal Forex Ltd
[2023] EWHC 3245 (Comm)
MBS Recovery Limited v Kenneth George Quinney
25 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 506 (Ch)
High Court
A company got a default judgment against a man because he didn't respond to their lawsuit. The man said he never got the lawsuit properly. The judge agreed because the company didn't prove they'd sent it correctly. The judge threw out the judgment and let the man fight the case.
Key Facts
- •MBS Recovery Limited (claimant) obtained a default judgment against Kenneth George Quinney (defendant) on 7 June 2023 for £4,789,568.70.
- •The claim was for equitable remedies concerning the defendant's alleged misappropriation of £3.5 million held on trust for MSL Services Limited (a Belize company).
- •The defendant is an Australian national who was residing in Spain at the time of service.
- •The claimant served the claim documents via multiple methods and alleged service on different dates.
- •The defendant argued that he was not properly served and had a real prospect of defending the claim.
- •The defendant first learned of the proceedings on 26 May 2023.
Legal Principles
Rules of service under CPR Rule 6.9
CPR Rule 6.9(2) and 6.9(3)
Deemed service under CPR Rule 6.14
CPR Rule 6.14
Conditions for obtaining default judgment under CPR Rule 12.3
CPR Rule 12.3(1)
Setting aside default judgment under CPR Rule 13.2
CPR Rule 13.2(a)
Setting aside default judgment under CPR Rule 13.3
CPR Rule 13.3(1)(a) and (b)
Test for 'real prospect of success' (derived from Easy Air Limited v Opal Telecom Limited)
Easy Air Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Test for prompt action when setting aside default judgment (derived from Denton v TH White Ltd)
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Outcomes
Default judgment set aside
The court found that proper service had not been effected, and that the default judgment was entered prematurely. The evidence of service was insufficient, and the defendant's prompt action upon learning of the claim supported the conclusion that service was invalid.
Defendant granted leave to defend
The defendant presented a credible defence challenging the claimant's version of events, including the authenticity of the contract, the claimant's title to sue and the honesty of the defendant's actions.