Kingsley Edward v Chinazo J Okeke & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2932 (KB)
Edward v Okeke & Ors
25 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 1192 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued people in Nigeria and they didn't respond. The judge wanted a hearing so everyone was fair, but the rules said to just give the person who sued what they asked for, even though it was a lot of money for things like emotional distress. They'll decide the exact amount of money later.
Key Facts
- •Four cases (QB-2022-002164, QB-2022-002165, QB-2022-002168, QB-2022-002507) where the claimant, Mr. Edward, sought default judgments against defendants in Nigeria.
- •Permission to serve out of jurisdiction granted in December 2022 and November 2022.
- •Defendants were served in January 2023 but failed to file acknowledgments of service or defenses.
- •Claims involved allegations of breach of contract, libel, slander, breach of confidence, harassment, and psychiatric injury.
- •Claimed amounts were £100,000 in each case, with varying specifics in amended particulars of claim.
- •Claimant objected to a hearing, seeking default judgments under CPR 12.4.
- •The Master initially considered listing a remote hearing for the defendants but then reconsidered this in light of the claimant's objection.
Legal Principles
Overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost (CPR 1.1)
Civil Procedure Rules
Vulnerable parties and witnesses (CPR 1.6 and Practice Direction 1A)
Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction
Court's general powers to manage cases (CPR 3.1)
Civil Procedure Rules
Default judgment procedure (CPR 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.12)
Civil Procedure Rules
Administrative acts vs. judicial decisions (CPR 2.5, 3.2)
Civil Procedure Rules
Defamation Act 2013, section 1 (serious harm requirement)
Defamation Act 2013
Jurisdiction in defamation cases (Pirtek v Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB))
Case Law
Default judgments in defamation and harassment cases (Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB), Charakida v Jackson [2019] EWHC 858 (QB), Parsons v Garnett & Ors [2022] EWHC 3017)
Case Law
Claims for specified vs. unspecified amounts (Merito Financial Services Ltd v David Yelloly [2016] EWHC 2067 (Ch), Lux Locations Ltd v Yida Zhang [2023] UKPC 3)
Case Law
Outcomes
Default judgments granted for damages to be assessed.
Claims were primarily for unliquidated damages (psychiatric injury, reputational damage), requiring assessment by the court. The court found that while a remote hearing would be preferable, the CPR did not allow it given the claimant's objection and the strict procedure of CPR 12.4.
Interim payment judgment of £15,000 in the Okeke case.
Specific financial claims were identified in this case.
Case management hearing scheduled for May 26th.
To address damages assessment and any potential applications to set aside the judgments.
Defendants ordered to pay claimant's costs.
Defendants were in breach of the rules by not filing a defense.