Advertising Standards Authority Ltd v Mitchell

On an application for default judgment, the court ordinarily proceeds on the basis of the claimant’s unchallenged statement of case. It need not investigate the merits or make findings of fact. Limited consideration of evidence may be appropriate where fairness or justice requires it, including where the defendant has already provided part of the relief sought. A litigant in person’s absence does not require an adjournment where the court is satisfied that proper notice was given and the litigant deliberately chose not to participate. In such circumstances, the court may abridge the ordinary notice period and proceed in the defendant’s absence.

The Advertising Standards Authority sought default judgment against Robert Neil Whyte Mitchell in a claim concerning the use or disclosure of confidential information mistakenly sent to him. Interim injunctions had previously been granted and continued. The defendant had disputed jurisdiction in correspondence, but had neither indicated that dispute on an acknowledgment of service nor applied under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 for a jurisdictional declaration. He failed to acknowledge service and did not attend or respond to the default judgment application.

The court considered whether to proceed on short notice and in the defendant’s absence, whether the conditions for default judgment were met, and what relief the claimant was entitled to.

1. Absence and short notice. The court directed that sufficient notice had been given despite the ordinary three-clear-day requirement in CPR 23.7(1)(b). The defendant had actual notice, had received full details of the hearing, and had ample opportunity to seek an adjournment, oppose the application, or obtain representation. His decision not to engage was deliberate. The requirements of section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were therefore satisfied.
2. The court had regard to the defendant’s status as a litigant in person, as required by CPR 3.1A(2), and to the guidance in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12. That did not require further delay where delay would serve no useful purpose and the defendant had knowingly declined to participate.
3. Default judgment. The threshold conditions in CPR 12.3 and CPR 12PD 4.1 were met. The defendant had not acknowledged service, no relevant application was pending, and he had not satisfied the claim in full because he declined to give undertakings or pay costs.
4. Under CPR 12.11(1), the court considered what judgment the claimant was entitled to on its statement of case. Following Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB) and Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB), the usual approach was to accept the unchallenged pleaded case without investigating its merits or requiring proof. The approach could be modified where the pleaded case appeared untenable or where justice required limited reference to evidence.
5. Here, the defendant’s evidence that he had deleted the email and attachments was accepted, so no order for deletion was required. The remaining pleaded case justified the requested injunction. The injunction operated against the defendant personally and was not territorially limited. The order sought was granted.

The judgment itself records earlier interlocutory stages in the same proceedings:

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): interim injunction granted on 7 June 2019, with reasons handed down on 11 June 2019: [2019] EWHC 1469 (QB).
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): interim injunction continued on 14 June 2019, with reasons recorded as [2019] EWHC 1527 (QB).
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): default judgment granted in the present decision.