Mr J Engramer and others v Mr D Jennings and Ms M White T/a Le Petit Poisson and others: 2302415/2017 and others
REASONS
[1]These Reasons should be read in conjunction with all earlier Orders and Reasons.[2]I heard submission from Mr Morton and read Mr Jennings’ unsigned statement and the documents to which I was referred. Case Number: 2302415.2017 2302416.2017 2302668.2017 2302669.2017 2302670.2017[3]I accept that I was in error in stating that no Respondent had entered an appearance: Mr Jennings did so when he was the only Respondent in Case Numbers 2302668.2018.[4]That case was a Multiple with three Claimants but, because of software errors, the names of the other Claimants did not appear on the claim form as served. This had been explained in a letter to Mr Jennings dated 24 October 2017 which would have been sent to him with the Response Pack on 25 October 2017 giving him notice of that claim. He used that Response Pack to present a Response naming all three Claimants, who were also identified in the letter effecting service together with the three case numbers. I did not therefore accept his assertion that he did not receive that letter.[5]In light of my error I must revoke the Judgment against the Second Respondent in favour of the Third Claimant.[6]I do not accept that I fell into error in stating that the Third Respondent did not enter a Response. It was joined as a party by my Case Management Order of 6 December 2017 and served at its Registered Office. Mr Jennings, who appears to have acted on behalf of the Third Respondent at that time, sent an email of 15 January 2018 that confirms it was received. .[7]I did not accept that he did not have adequate information to enter a response to that claim. He had done so in his personal capacity, clearly stating that any liability lay with the “limited company” and not with him as a manager. The default Judgment I made was entered entirely properly. The Third Respondent has not sought relief from that sanction or presented a proposed Response showing it has a valid defence to the claims.[8]In light of the above I confirm the Judgment against the Third Respondent in favour of the First and Second Claimants.