The High Court has set aside a default judgment against the first named defendant in a personal injuries action arising from cosmetic surgery provided to Lyndsey Farrell in 2020. The court found that the medical emergency suffered by the defendants’ solicitor, and his restricted ability to work in the weeks before the defence deadline, were special circumstances explaining and justifying the delay.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the ruling on 24 June 2024. The court also set aside an order that had purported to extend the default judgment to the second and third named defendants. It concluded that no default judgment had crystallised against them.
The proceedings began in February 2022. The plaintiff’s solicitor sought a defence in March 2023 and later moved for judgment in default. On 19 June 2023, the High Court made an “unless order” on consent, giving the first named defendant six weeks to deliver and file a defence. The order, perfected on 21 June, applied only to that defendant.
The plaintiff’s side later obtained an amended order without notifying the defendants. It substituted “Defendants” for “First Named Defendant”. The judge found that the application was made improperly: the rules required the other side’s consent or an application on notice. The judge said the lawyer who moved the application mistakenly told the court it was by consent, and there was no suggestion the lawyer intended to mislead the judge. The plaintiff no longer sought to rely on the amended order, which was set aside.
The first named defendant’s defence was due by 4 September 2023. The solicitor became unwell in June, was admitted to hospital and underwent heart-related surgery. Medical evidence described his reduced capacity to work through the following weeks. The court accepted that the effects continued through July and August and that, but for the emergency, the defence would likely have been filed on time. It held that the circumstances met the test under Order 27, rule 15(2).
The judge also found that the balance of justice favoured setting aside the judgment. The defence had a reasonable prospect of success, the delay was a matter of days, and the defendants moved promptly to challenge the default. The merits of the personal injuries claim remain to be decided; the ruling does not determine liability.
The court said the deadline under the original order ran from its perfection, with the August period excluded, making 4 September the deadline. It directed that the judgment against the first named defendant be set aside and that time for a defence be extended. The precise form of the order and legal costs remained for further submissions, with the case scheduled for a hearing on 10 October 2024.