Justice Investments Ltd v Visalia Enegia SL t/a Nace

Default judgment may be entered against some defendants where the claims can properly be dealt with separately from claims against other defendants. The possibility of inconsistent outcomes does not, by itself, prevent judgment, particularly where the causes of action are personal or require separate participation, such as deceit and conspiracy.

A tort claim for damages is generally a claim for an unspecified sum. Particularising alleged loss by stating a monetary figure does not make the claim one for a specified sum unless there is sufficient additional clarity. The appropriate order is judgment for damages to be assessed, followed by directions for assessment.

The claimant brought tort claims, including deceit and conspiracy, arising from an alleged investment and profit-sharing arrangement. The first and second defendants defended the proceedings, which were stayed by agreement. The third, fourth and fifth defendants were served but filed neither acknowledgments of service nor defences.

The claimant sought default judgment against those three defendants for particular financial amounts. The court considered whether the claims could be dealt with separately under the Civil Procedure Rules and whether the claimed amounts were specified sums or damages requiring assessment.

1. The court granted default judgment against the third, fourth and fifth defendants. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 12.9, and otherwise under Part 3, the court had power in principle to enter judgment against defendants who had been served but had failed to acknowledge service or file defences.
2. The claims could be dealt with separately from the stayed claims against the first and second defendants. A finding that the third, fourth and fifth defendants had committed deceit or conspiracy would not necessarily imply that the first or second defendants had committed any wrong. Deceit was a subjective allegation, and actionable conspiracy could exist between some defendants without involving others.
3. The default judgment had to protect the first and second defendants. It was therefore ordered that it would not bind them, affect any defences they might advance, or amount to any finding or determination of fact or law against them.
4. The court declined to enter judgment for the particular amounts claimed. Following the court’s earlier decision in Edward v Okeke & Ors [2003] EWHC 1192 (KB), and taking account of the approach adopted on appeal in Edward v Okeke & Ors [2023] EWHC 2932 (KB), a statement of alleged loss in a tort claim did not, without greater clarity, make the claim one for a specified sum. The claim was therefore treated as one for an unspecified sum.
5. Judgment was entered for damages to be assessed. Directions were given for evidence and legal submissions on loss and causation, responses by the defaulting defendants, and a subsequent disposal hearing, pursuant to CPR 12.8.