Edward v Okeke & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1192 (KB)
Kingsley Edward v Chinazo J Okeke & Ors
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2932 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued four people in the UK for £100,000 each without those people responding. Instead of automatically awarding the money, the judge ordered a proper assessment of the actual damages. The appeal court agreed that the initial claim was too vague to automatically receive the full amount.
Key Facts
- •The appellant issued four separate claims against respondents in Nigeria, each seeking £100,000 in damages for various alleged wrongs (negligence, libel, defamation, harassment).
- •Respondents did not file acknowledgements of service or defences.
- •The appellant sought default judgments for £100,000 in each case.
- •Master Dagnall ordered damages to be assessed instead of granting default judgments for the specified amount.
- •The appellant appealed, arguing he was entitled to default judgments for £100,000 under CPR 12.4(1)(a).
Legal Principles
Overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR 1.1
Court staff may perform formal or administrative acts, including referral to a judge.
CPR 2.5
Court has general case management powers, including holding hearings remotely.
CPR 3.1(2)(d), 3.1(2)(m)
Claim form must specify the remedy sought.
CPR 16.2(1)(b)
Default judgment procedure for specified and unspecified amounts of money.
CPR 12.4, 12.5
Distinction between 'liquidated demand' and 'unliquidated damages' in previous Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC).
RSC Ord 13
Interpretation of 'specified amount of money' in CPR 12.5(2) – differing interpretations by Master Matthews (Merito) and Master Dagnall.
Merito Financial Services Ltd v David Yelloly [2016] EWHC 2067 (Ch)
Entry of default judgment is an administrative act.
Lux Locations Ltd v Yida Zhang [2023] UKPC 3
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant's claims were not for 'specified amounts of money' as required by CPR 12.5(2). The claim forms and particulars of claim did not clearly specify a fixed sum, instead indicating claims for damages to be assessed. While the judge's power to list a hearing was discussed, it was not determinative of the appeal's outcome.