‘Good reason’ means good reason

Brazil v Brazil (CA TLR 18 October; NLJ 1 November)

Under CPR rule 39.3(5) there must be ‘good reason’ to set aside a judgment following non-attendance. There had been some debate about what was or was not capable of being ‘good reason’. The English phrase ‘good reason’ is a sufficiently clear expression of the standard of acceptability to be applied to enable a court to determine whether or not there was a good reason for a party’s non-attendance. The question raised an issue on the defendant’s state of knowledge about an event at which he was entitled to be present and the result of which could deprive him of the possession of his home. A significant fact was that the defendant was illiterate. The combined effect of the defendant acting in person, of the handicap of illiteracy and of his non-receipt of the order notifying him of the trial date was sufficient in all the circumstances to be acceptable as ‘good reason’ for his non-attendance at the hearing.