Skip to content
Legal Lens

Legal Lens

Independent, practical help for litigants in person in England & Wales.

Search for:
Log in
Register

Menu

Close
Legal Lens
  • About Legal Lens
    • About Us
    • Who Funds Us?
    • Values, Policies & Protocols
  • Blog
    • Latest Posts
      • Pay into court or stop your claim: when a defendant can demand security for costs, and the threats litigants in person can ignore
      • Participation, not pity: how the civil courts must accommodate vulnerable litigants in person
      • Eight per cent and counting: the statutory interest litigants in person forget to claim
      • Issued is not served: the four-month claim form deadline that quietly ends claims
      • Complaining about a judge: what the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can and cannot do
    • Case Reports
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Legal Innovation
    • Legal Practice
    • Regulatory Matters
    • UK Legal System
  • Get Involved
    • Judicial Review Against the SRA
    • Write for Us
    • Support Us
    • Syndication and Copyright
  • Factsheets & Tools
    • Factsheets
    • Tools
    • Basic Assistance Directory
    • Peer Support Network
    • Trusted Directory
  • Contact & Free Assessment
Legal Lens
  • About Legal Lens
    • About Us
    • Who Funds Us?
    • Values, Policies & Protocols
  • Blog
    • Latest Posts
      • Pay into court or stop your claim: when a defendant can demand security for costs, and the threats litigants in person can ignore
      • Participation, not pity: how the civil courts must accommodate vulnerable litigants in person
      • Eight per cent and counting: the statutory interest litigants in person forget to claim
      • Issued is not served: the four-month claim form deadline that quietly ends claims
      • Complaining about a judge: what the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can and cannot do
    • Case Reports
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Legal Innovation
    • Legal Practice
    • Regulatory Matters
    • UK Legal System
  • Get Involved
    • Judicial Review Against the SRA
    • Write for Us
    • Support Us
    • Syndication and Copyright
  • Factsheets & Tools
    • Factsheets
    • Tools
    • Basic Assistance Directory
    • Peer Support Network
    • Trusted Directory
  • Contact & Free Assessment
Search for:
Log in
Register

Tag: credit record

  • Home
  • credit record
Setting aside a default judgment: the two routes and the promptness trap
Litigants in Person

Setting aside a default judgment: the two routes and the promptness trap

Written by John Barwell 16 September 202616 September 2026

A default judgment is not the end of a case. Part 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules builds in two routes back — one mandatory, one discretionary — and the route you take decides what you must prove. This guide sets out both routes, the promptness requirement the rule itself names, and the evidence an application has to carry.

Recent Posts

  • Pay into court or stop your claim: when a defendant can demand security for costs, and the threats litigants in person can ignore
  • Participation, not pity: how the civil courts must accommodate vulnerable litigants in person
  • Eight per cent and counting: the statutory interest litigants in person forget to claim
  • Issued is not served: the four-month claim form deadline that quietly ends claims
  • Complaining about a judge: what the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can and cannot do
Legal Lens

About Legal Lens

  • About Us
  • Who Funds Us?
  • Values, Policies & Protocols

Privacy & Integrity

  • Editorial Standards
  • Investigative Journalism
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Engagement
  • Terms of Use

Get Involved

  • Write for Us
  • Support Us
  • Syndication and Copyright

Contact Us

  • Contact
  • john@legallens.org.uk

© Legal Lens 2026. All rights reserved, except our articles, which are published under CC BY-NC 4.0.

Registered with the ICO (ZB903494). Professional indemnity and cyber risk insurance held.

Privacy Policy