header-logo header-logo

20 June 2014
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Specified v unspecified

I had understood that the CPR changed the law and entitled a claimant to liquidate general damages and make a specified claim which could lead to a default judgment for the specified sum rather than for an amount to be decided by the court. However, on several occasions deputies dealing with online money claims have without notice set aside judgments for specified sums which have included a general damages element on the ground that these were strictly unspecified claims and should not have been issued online. They have also struck out the claims and this I regard as way over the top. If they are right then I fancy that 75% of claims made on line should not have been so made. Am I wrong?

No. The received view when the CPR came into force was that the introduction of the specified claim enabled a claimant to claim, say, a fixed sum of £10,000 for damages for personal injury if he chose to do so and that enabled them to enter a default judgment for the specified sum (but distinguish a claim limited to £10,000).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll