Personally I still take the view that trying to appeal these orders about evidence is very unlikely to lead anywhere. It would be interesting to hear what Ganymede thinks.

@steampowered...thank you. I appreciate your input and I'll definitely bear your advice in mind.

Hi there,

Views on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I had a judgment made against me by a Master in a High Court, in a civil claim in December 2013. This is highly contested as firstly,I am not guilty of what I've been accused of and secondly this judgment was made to join/substitute me into proceedings after judgment in default was obtained by Persons Unknown, some 4 months prior.

I applied for Permission to Appeal and duly applied for a transcript of proceedings as per the usual procedure. This was in early January of this year. Eventually, I received a transcript of the proceedings and was awaiting the transcript of the approved judgment. Weeks passed, months passed....despite several follow up requests..still no approved judgment. I've been granted Permission to Appeal and still waiting for the approved judgment of the initial hearing.

I was shocked to be told today that the Master contacted the transcription company and informed them that the hearing in December is classed as "restricted" and therefore no approved judgment will be issued. For the record, this was not a private hearing, it was just a usual everyday type hearing in the Masters Unit.

I'd be really grateful to obtain your views on this.

Many thanks

What is the case about?

@ steampowered

Thanks for answering. I was falsely accused of defamation.

OK, thanks.

There are still a lot of unknowns here. Your posts also contain a few apparent contradictions (e.g. the reference to default judgment vs. reference to a reserved judgment; talk of the Master making a judgment when I'm not sure that really falls within the role of the Master). This probably results from not fully understanding all the legal jargon (totally understandable) but makes it very difficult to express a view. I think you would really benefit from having a solicitor help you unravel this.

Based on what you have posted I take the view that the most appropriate course of action would be to apply to the original court for an appropriate order (such as the judgment being changed or any injunction discharged). I'm not sure 'appealing' the judgment is the right way to go (assuming you mean 'appeal' in the technical legal meaning of the word, i.e. appealing up to the Court of Appeal).

@ steampowered, thank you for responding. To clarify, I would like to say as follows:

1. There was judgment in default entered against Persons Unknown

2. Four months later, the Claimant made an application that Persons Unknown be amended to my name. This was definitely after judgment in default was entered prior.

3. A Master presided over this application hearing and delivered an ORDER in favour of the Claimants and joined me to proceedings. My sincere apologies, I used the word judgment referring to the Master's decision, as I was ignorant to the difference between judgments and orders. Thank you for enriching my knowledge o this issue.

I hope this clarifies the mention of judgment x2. The Master's order is highly contested as stated above and I contend that the Master had no jurisdiction to make this order after judgment in default was obtained. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I know that this is a bizarre situation, but it is the truth.

4.The appeal is based on appealing the Master's decision and permission to appeal has been obtained in the Queens Bench Division.

Would you be so kind to elucidate as to what you mean by applying to the original court for an appropriate order (such as the judgment being changed or any injunction discharged)? Do you mean to set the default judgment aside? or are you referring to the Master's order to join/substitute me after default judgment was entered against Persons Unknown? Please explain.

Given this additional information, what are your views on why the approved judgment is being withheld and the hearing is being regarded as "restricted". The categorising of the hearing as restricted comes as a shock , as no order was ever made to regard it as such. As a matter of fact, this hearing was opened to the members of the public.

On contacting the court's transcript office and the Master's Unit today to query this restriction, neither had any information indicating or suggesting the existence of any ordered restrictions on their systems and they too were puzzled about this. I was informed that only private hearings have these restrictions on transcripts, however this restriction would only apply to members of the public and the parties would be entitled to a copy of the court transcript and the judgment. For the record, this hearing was definitely not private.

Your views would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Alright. That makes a bit more sense. As you are really appealing the substitution of your name, an appeal probably is the right way to go.I meant applying to have the original judgment set aside if it affects you, but it seems you are really contesting the substitution rather than the original judgment.I don't know why the approved judgment is being withheld or the hearing is regarding as restricted, this is not normal practice. The general rule is that all hearings and judgments/transcripts are matters of public record, although there are exceptions.

@ steampowered, thank you so much. You've made things so much clearer now. I genuinely appreciate your input and views.

OK, glad I was some use, its difficult to be more specific about a case like this without a lot of very detailed information. Good luck.

@ steampowered, I understand completely. I can assure you that you've conceptualised matters excellently and as a result your advice is spot on! Thanks again.