London HC sets aside £100,000 default judgment against Fox Mandal in professional negligence claim; Court of Appeal refuses leave to appeal

The London High Court has set aside £100,000 default judgment of May 23, 2013 obtained by Lawrence Karat against Fox Mandal & Co. in a claim of professional negligence after which Karat had filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, London..On February 13, 2014, the Court of Appeal has refused permission for leave to appeal, “as being totally without merit”. The Judge has further said that Karat is not to apply to have the decision reconsidered at an oral hearing..In the order Judge Stanley Burton said,.“The judge was entitled to make the setting aside order of 22 November 2013 in the exercise of his undoubted discretion. He was entitled to accept the evidence of the defendants (Fox Mandal) as to when they learned of the judgment. Moreover it was relevant that the proceedings were served in London, when the previous correspondence had been with the Defendants in India.No ground has been shown for impugning his exercise of his discretion. Indeed, since it was conceded that the claimant (Karat) has no claim against the defendants, there was a very strong case of setting the judgment aside”..Karat, who is the Director of The Movie Card People Company Limited is being represented by Ravindra Kumar of Singhania & Co (who has previously worked at Fox Mandal) along with Of Counsel Michael Biggs..Karat, a client of Fox Mandal had made allegations of professional negligence in respect of legal services supplied by the Indian law firm in 2008 in connection with patent filings. He also sought damages from Fox Mandal for losses arising out of allegedly unprofessional services in pursuing his patent application in India..It was Karat’s contention that Fox Mandal’s Managing Partner, Som Mandal had represented that “the defendant firm is one of the largest law firms in India and will be best law firm for claimant to instruct for his patent application in India for his latest invention”,.However, Karat alleged that his patent application was not properly managed for four years and he was not kept duly informed due to which he lost several business opportunities..Thereafter, Karat obtained a default judgment against Fox Mandal for over £100,000. Fox Mandal after finding out about the defaut judgment engaged Penningtons Manches LLP to defend them..Fox Mandal was represented by Rustam S Dubash and Saionton Basu from Penningtons along with Victoria Shore of counsel, who then filed for setting aside of the default judgment on the ground that they were not served in a proper manner and as a result they did not get a chance to defend the claimant’s action..The London High Court in its November 22 order setting aside the default judgment said,.“Clearly, the defendant (Fox Mandal) not only has a real prospect of success for defending the claim but has a certain prospect of successfully defending the claim, as it stands.”.The Court further said,.“It was unfortunate that at the time the proceedings were served, copies were not sent to the person with whom the claimant’s (Karat) solicitors had been corresponding. That is common courtesy and is also common sense because then there would have been no doubt that the defendant knew that they had been served with proceedings. As I have said, I have no reason to doubt the defendant’s account of how and when the action came to his knowledge.In all of those circumstances and in exercising my discretion, I am going to set aside the judgment.”.Speaking to Bar & Bench on the Court of Appeal order, Som Mandal said, “We are glad that our stand in the case is vindicated and even the Court of Appeal England dismissed their appeal … ‘as been totally without merit’.”.He added, “The claim was absolute false and brought out deliberately against our firm to disrepute our good will. We have documentary evidence to show that the claimant himself was pushed deliberately by the solicitor to follow up this claim. The solicitor concerned charged the claimant a success fee and lured the claimant to file this case against us. We are considering various options available to us against all concerned for bringing this false claim.”