0370 270 6000

ED & F Mann Liquid Products Limited v Patell, Court of Appeal, 14 April 2003

14 April 2003
The issues

Setting aside Judgment – CPR Part 13 – CPR Part 24.

The facts

The First Defendant applied to set aside a Judgment obtained in default of Acknowledgement of Service. The Judge rejected that Application. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

1. In CPR Part 13 (setting aside Judgment) and CPR Part 24 (striking out) the same phrase appeared, namely “a real prospect of successfully defending the claim”.

2. Under both rules, the Defendant had to have a case that was better than merely arguable as had been the case under the old rules and where there was a realistic prospect of success carrying some degree of conviction.

3. The difference between Part 24 and Part 13 was that when applying to strike out, the burden of proof rested on the Claimant to show that the Defendant had no prospect of success, whereas under Part 13 the burden lay on the Defendant. The Court would be more receptive to a Defendant’s arguments under Part 24 than Part 13.

Appeal dismissed.

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.



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.


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.


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.


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