Pennington v De Wan, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, January 05, 2017, [2017] EWHC 4 (Ch)

Issuing Organization:Chancery Division
Actores:Pennington v De Wan
Resolution Date:January 05, 2017

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 4 (Ch)

Case No: HC-2016-001042



Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 5 January 2017

Before :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Adrian Carr (instructed by Giles Wilson LLP) for the Claimant

The Defendant appeared in person

Hearing date: 7 October 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Master Matthews:


  1. This is my judgment on the trial of the assessment of damages in a claim brought by the claimant against the defendant in respect of various matters. The claim was begun by claim form issued on 30 March 2016. The matters concerned were (i) loans totalling some £82,266.33, (ii) a Rolex watch said to have been bought by the claimant and loaned by her to the defendant but not returned, and (iii) damage sustained to an Aston Martin DB9 motor car bought by the claimant but used by the defendant.

  2. On 27 May 2016 the court entered judgment for the claimant in default of acknowledgment of service, in the sum of £97,608.57. On the application of the defendant to set aside the judgment, and after hearing the parties, on 22 July 2016 I varied the default judgment. In respect of the loans, judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £73,366.33. In respect of the watch claim, the judgment was set aside. The watch claim has since been abandoned. In respect of the car claim, judgment was entered for the claimant on liability with damages to be assessed. On 7 October 2016 I heard the parties on the assessment of damages on the car claim. On that occasion Mr Adrian Carr of counsel appeared for the claimant. The defendant appeared in person. This judgment is concerned only with that assessment of damages. I am sorry for the delay in handing it down.

    The evidence

  3. The evidence in this case was both written and oral. The claimant made an affidavit dated 29 March 2016 in support of an application for a freezing order against the defendant. (On 11 April 2016 Arnold J accepted an undertaking from the defendant in lieu of granting an order on the application.) On 11 June 2016 the defendant made a witness statement in support of his application to set aside the default judgment. Further witness statements were made by Ryan Jordan, Kaveh Mobasheri, and James Wilkinson (all dated 15 July 2016), and Andrew Fell (dated 19 July 2016), but none of them relates to the car claim. The defendant made a second witness statement dated 26 August 2016. The claimant's solicitor, Jonathan Hodge, made three witness statements, of which only the last, dated 5 September 2016 (dealing with the insurance of the car) is relevant. The claimant made a second witness statement of 5 September, responding to that of the defendant of 26 August 2016.

  4. As to oral evidence, the claimant, the defendant and Mr Hodge were all tendered for cross-examination. The defendant (acting in person) asked no questions of the claimant or Mr Hodge in cross-examination. Mr Hodge is of course a solicitor and has no personal interest in the mater. His evidence was relatively uncontroversial and I have no hesitation in accepting it as the truth. The claimant is in a different position, because she has a strong personal interest in the matter. This is both because of the money claim and also because of the former intimate relationship between the parties. It is clear that she feels strongly that she has wasted both her time and (as she would say) her money on the defendant. That does not disentitle her to her rights, of course. But the absence of any cross-examination made it impossible for her evidence to be...

To continue reading