|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Farrer & Co LLP v Meyer  EWHC 362 (QB) (26 January 2022)
Cite as:  EWHC 362 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| FARRER & CO LLP
|- and -
|JULIE MARIE MEYER
MS FRANCESCA PERSELLI (instructed by Preiskel & Co LLP) appeared for the Defendant.
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE KERR:
(1) The defendant's application to set aside a default judgment in favour of the claimant in respect of the claim;
(2) the defendant's application for relief from sanctions and an extension of time for compliance with an order of the court for disclosure of certain documents;
(3) whether the defendant should be subject to a suspended sanction for contempt of court for non-compliance with that order.
Parties, representations and appearances
Facts in outline
(i) bank statements for any account held in the defendant's name at Banque Migros from the date that account was opened to the date of this order;
(ii) documents relating to the loan obtained by the defendant from Banque Migros, including but not limited to (a) the loan agreement; (b) bank statements and other documents showing the account or accounts into which the loan proceeds were paid; and (c) bank statements and other documents showing payment in respect of the loan and the accounts from which those payments had been made;
(iii) documents relating to or evidencing the status of her alleged director's account with Viva Investment Partners AG from the date of her first involvement with Viva Investment Partners AG (howsoever called) and the date of this order;
(iv) credit card statements in respect of any corporate card or credit card used by the defendant to fund her living and/or personal expenses from 2016 to the date of this order;
(v) any correspondence or documents relating to her notification to Companies House as a Person with Significant Control in respect of Lattun Limited;
(vi) her tax returns to the United States' Internal Revenue Service for each and every year from 2016 onwards;
(vii) the two sale and purchase agreements to which the defendant referred during the course of her adjourned examination and under which her entitlement to earnout consideration arises; and
(viii) any documents relating to the exercise of and sums held in her pension.
(1) a poor standard of service had been provided by the claimant. It was said also that she had raised that issue in 2018.
(2) that the retainer letters 'indicated' that there would be ceilings on monthly billings, which were exceeded.
(3) that she intended to counterclaim for misrepresentation in separate proceedings, and
(4) that the bills were inadequately particularised.
"… listed for hearing, before a High Court Judge, on the first available date next term on or after 17 January 2022, for two hours. and at that hearing consideration is also to be given to the consequences of and steps to be taken in respect of the apparent and continuing non-compliance with the Williams J Order.
AND IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that nothing in this Order should prevent the Defendant from providing documents described in paragraph 3 of the Williams J Order in tranches."
First issue: whether the default judgment should be set aside
"It is implicit within section 1140 CA 2006 that the claimant cannot serve at that address in circumstances where it would be required, because of its knowledge of the defendant's circumstances, to take reasonable steps to confirm the service address under r6.9. Therefore there has not been good service.
Further and alternatively, that CPR Part 12 is not available where service has not been effected pursuant to Part 6. The wording of Part 12 does not permit it and there are strong policy reasons why it should not be available."
Second issue: whether time for compliance should be extended and/or the defendant should be granted relief from sanctions in respect of non-compliance with the order of Heather Williams J.
Third issue: whether the defendant should be subject to a sanction for breach of the order of Heather Williams J dated 29 October 2021
|Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737