Eurasia Sports Ltd v Tsai & Ors

A court may determine a claim on its merits in the absence of defendants who have chosen not to attend, provided they received fair warning of the proceedings and hearing. The court must take special care to safeguard fairness and may adapt the trial procedure where necessary. A reasoned merits judgment may be preferable to default judgment where enforcement abroad is contemplated. On the evidence, contractual betting accounts, security arrangements and monthly settlement obligations were established, and the claimant proved the defendants’ unpaid debts on the balance of probabilities.

The claimant, an Alderney betting agency, sought more than US$12.6 million from eleven defendants under several causes of action arising from online betting accounts and related agency and security arrangements. At trial the claimant pursued only its debt claims. The defendants had been served, but none appeared or was represented.

The court considered whether to give default judgment or a reasoned judgment on the merits, having regard to the defendants’ absence and the claimant’s intention to enforce the judgment abroad. Earlier interlocutory proceedings included a jurisdiction challenge, an appeal, and summary judgment for the claimant on a dishonoured US$10 million cheque. The central issues were whether a merits trial could fairly proceed in the defendants’ absence and whether the claimant had proved the alleged contractual debts.

1. Trial in absence. The court could give either default judgment or a reasoned judgment on the merits where a defendant had not appeared, provided the defendant had been given fair warning of the proceedings and trial date. Under CPR 39.3, trial in a party’s absence was expressly permitted. The court had to take special care to ensure a fair process and properly safeguard the absent defendants’ interests. It could adapt the procedure where necessary to achieve fairness and the overriding objective.
2. The defendants had been served with the claim, evidence and trial notices in a manner that made them aware of the proceedings and hearing. The judge therefore proceeded to determine the merits. The claimant’s presentation, including drawing attention to stronger and weaker aspects of its evidence, and the judge’s questioning for clarification, provided appropriate safeguards.
3. Debt claims. The documentary and witness evidence established agreements for individual betting accounts, the provision of security against credit, and monthly settlement obligations. The agency and security arrangement involving the first and third defendants was also established. The defendants’ use of the accounts and the surrounding communications supported the conclusion that the arrangements had been agreed and operated as alleged.
4. The claimant proved on the balance of probabilities that defendants 1 to 8 and 10 to 11 were indebted in the sums claimed. Judgment was entered for the claimant on those debt claims, with interest. The claim against defendant 9 had already been discontinued. Calculation of interest and consequential matters was reserved.

• Court of Appeal: D11’s appeal against the dismissal of the jurisdiction challenge was dismissed on 24 July 2018, [2018] EWCA Civ 1742, reported at [2018] 1 WLR 6089.
• High Court: Edis J dismissed the jurisdiction challenge on 8 September 2016, [2016] EWHC 2207 (QB). Andrew Baker J adjourned an application for summary judgment on 15 March 2017, [2017] EWHC 748 (QB). Lavender J made a conditional order on 28 July 2017, [2017] EWHC 2232 (QB), and later entered summary judgment against D3 for US$10 million plus interest and costs.