A company sued individuals, freezing their money. The individuals lost their lawyers because they couldn't pay. The judge let the company proceed with its case, saying it was fairer to everyone to decide the case on its merits rather than just giving the company a win automatically because the individuals couldn't afford a lawyer. The judge hasn't actually decided who wins yet, just that the case can continue.
Key Facts
- •L & S Accounting Firm Umbrella Limited (in liquidation) brought a Part 7 claim against five defendants, including two individuals.
- •The claim included declaratory relief.
- •Defendants initially had legal representation but dismissed them due to lack of funds after a freezing injunction prevented access to their money.
- •Claimant applied for permission to proceed with a summary judgment application under CPR 24.4(1)(a) due to lack of filed defences and the nature of the claim.
- •Defendants argued the claimant's actions were supported by 'lies' and errors and that they lacked the means to defend themselves adequately.
- •A freezing injunction had been granted on 30 November 2023, freezing funds including a recent £2,000 payment received by the defendants.
Legal Principles
CPR 24.4(1)(a) allows the court to grant permission to proceed with a summary judgment application despite the absence of filed defences.
Civil Procedure Rules
The overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost guides the court's decisions.
Civil Procedure Rules (implied)
Outcomes
Permission granted to the claimant to proceed with the summary judgment application.
The court deemed it consistent with the overriding objective and fair to the defendants, given their lack of funds to mount a proper defence. Considering the merits of the case through summary judgment provided a more just process than a default judgment.