0370 270 6000

Coll v Tattum, Chancery Division

14 December 2001
The issues

Late file of Acknowledgement of Service – procedure.

The decision

1. Where no Application to seek Judgment at default had been made the Court and the Claimant “would normally accept the late Acknowledgement of Service or Defence”.

2. The Claimant or the Court however would be entitled to insist on the Defendant seeking an extension of time in the normal way.

3. If Judgment in Default was made after the late Acknowledgement of Service or Defence it might well be dismissed with costs, even though technically justified.

4. Where however the Application for Judgment in Default proceeded the filing of the Acknowledgement of Service or Defence then the matter became one of the Court’s discretion although that discretion would normally be exercised in favour of extending time.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up