Phyllis Rampersad and another v Deo Ramlal and 3 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2022] UKPC 50
Lux Locations Ltd v Yida Zhang (Antigua & Barbuda)
31 January 2023
[2023] UKPC 3
Privy Council
Two companies fought in court. A judge gave a quick ruling for one company (Zhang) because the other (Lux) didn't respond fast enough. A higher court said it couldn't review that decision. The highest court said that was wrong and reviewed the decision. They found Zhang’s case was bogus because he was trying to get out of paying what he owed, and threw out his case.
Key Facts
- •Lux Locations Ltd (Lux) sued Yida Zhang (Zhang) for commission under an agency agreement.
- •Parties settled the first action via a consent order for US$3m.
- •Zhang failed to pay, leading to enforcement proceedings by Lux.
- •Zhang commenced a second action against Lux alleging conspiracy.
- •Lux's application to strike out the second action succeeded.
- •Zhang brought a third action seeking to set aside the consent order.
- •Lux did not file a defence, leading to Zhang's application for default judgment.
- •The High Court granted default judgment for Zhang.
- •The Court of Appeal struck out Lux's appeal, claiming lack of jurisdiction.
- •The appeal before the Privy Council concerns the appealability of the default judgment.
Legal Principles
Proper approach to granting a default judgment for a remedy other than money.
Eastern Caribbean Civil Procedure Rules (Rules) 12.10(4), (5)
Appealability of default judgments.
Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Act (Act) section 31(1)(b), (2)(g)
Doctrine of non est factum.
Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004
Apparent authority of a lawyer to settle litigation.
Waugh v HB Clifford & Sons Ltd [1982] Ch 374
Abuse of process.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Discretion of the court to refuse default judgment if the claim is manifestly bad or an abuse of process.
Charles v Shepherd [1892] 2 QB 622, Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra [1998] 1 WLR 870, Gibbings v Strong (1884) 26 Ch D 66, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 1) [1974] 1 WLR 991
Treatment of late filed defences in default judgment applications.
Rolle v Lander [2014] ECSCJ No 234, Attorney General v Matthews [2011] UKPC 38
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal; the default judgment was a judicial decision, not merely an administrative act. The Court also failed to consider Lux's application for an extension of time and to assess whether Zhang's claim was an abuse of process.
High Court and Court of Appeal orders set aside.
The default judgment was wrongly granted due to jurisdictional error and failure to consider the merits of Lux's arguments against the claim.
Statement of claim struck out.
Zhang's claim to set aside the consent order was an abuse of process; his allegations were implausible and his lawyer had apparent authority to settle.
Action dismissed.
Zhang's claim lacked merit and was an abuse of process.