Kingsley Edward v Chinazo J Okeke & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2932 (KB)
Justice Investments Ltd v Visalia Enegia SL t/a Nace
19 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 815 (KB)
High Court
A company sued several others for breaking an agreement. Some defendants ignored the lawsuit, so the judge ruled against them. The judge made sure this ruling wouldn't affect the other defendants, who are still fighting the case. The amount of money the ignoring defendants owe will be decided later.
Key Facts
- •Justice Investments Ltd (Claimant) sued Visalia Enegia SL and others (Defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, and conspiracy.
- •The Claimant is the holding company of Vivier, which loaned €2 million to the Fifth Defendant.
- •The loan agreement stipulated investment in the First Defendant, repayment to Vivier, and profit sharing with the Claimant.
- •The First and Second Defendants filed defenses and agreed to a stay of proceedings.
- •The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants failed to acknowledge service or file defenses.
- •The Claimant sought default judgment against the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants.
- •The court considered whether the claims could be dealt with separately under CPR 12.9 and whether they were for specified or unspecified sums.
Legal Principles
CPR 12.9 governs default judgments against multiple defendants, considering whether claims can be dealt with separately.
Civil Procedure Rule 12.9
A court should be cautious about granting default judgments leading to potential inconsistencies, especially with alternative claims.
White Book notes at 12.9.1 and case law cited therein
Inconsistent default judgments are possible but require strong circumstances.
Page v Champion Financial Management Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 1778 (QB) (paragraphs 62-69)
A claim for damages in tort is generally not a claim for a specified sum.
Edward v Okeke & Ors [2003] EWHC 1192 (KB) and [2023] EWHC 2932 (KB)
A mere statement of loss in a statement of case is insufficient to render a claim for a specified sum.
[2023] EWHC 2932 (KB)
Outcomes
Default judgments granted against the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants.
The defendants failed to comply with court rules, and the claims could be dealt with separately without prejudicing the First and Second Defendants. The claims were for unspecified sums, requiring damages assessment.
Damages to be assessed for the default judgments.
The claims were for unspecified sums, following the precedent set in Edward v Okeke & Ors.
Directions for assessment given: Claimant to serve witness statement and legal submissions; Defendants given time to respond; Disposal Hearing to be scheduled.
Case management under CPR 12.8 considering the Defendants' lack of engagement.
The default judgment will not be binding on or affect the First and Second Defendants’ defenses or create findings against them.
To protect the First and Second Defendants, whose case is stayed.