L & S Accounting Firm Umbrella Ltd v Idusogie Laurel Oronsaye & Ors

Where a claim includes declaratory relief and no defence has been filed, the court may permit an application for summary judgment to proceed under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.4(1)(a), where this is consistent with the overriding objective.

The permission stage is distinct from determination of the summary judgment application. The court may allow the application to proceed so that the merits can be considered fairly, while reserving the question whether the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or whether there is another compelling reason for trial.

The claimant, a company in liquidation, made an application for summary judgment in proceedings against two individuals and three companies. No defences had been filed.

The claimant sought permission to proceed with summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.4(1)(a). It explained that the claim included declaratory relief, making a straightforward judgment in default administratively unsuitable. The defendants, appearing in person after their legal representatives had been dismissed for lack of funds, opposed the application and raised points concerning the merits and fairness of the proceedings.

The issue was whether the summary judgment application should be permitted to proceed, not whether it should succeed.

1. Permission granted. The claimant was permitted to bring and proceed with its summary judgment application under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.4(1)(a), despite the absence of filed defences.

2. The court accepted that proceeding under Part 24 was a pragmatic course because the claim included declaratory relief and judgment in default would not provide an administratively sufficient route without a further application under Part 23. Considering the substantive claim through summary judgment also promoted fairness, since the defendants would have an opportunity to oppose the claim on its merits.

3. The decision was made in accordance with the overriding objective and the court’s discretionary case-management powers. The defendants’ complaints about alleged errors, lies, accounting evidence and business expenses were matters for the merits of the summary judgment application rather than for the permission issue.

4. The order did not determine the merits or express any view on the prospects of success. The claimant remained required to establish that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, or that there was some other reason why the case should proceed to trial.