Statements on the time limit for entering a default judgment. Also criticism of a district court judge for delaying entering a default judgment

The defendant in a simplified civil case was served with a summons application with an order to submit a defence within a certain time limit or risk a default judgment. When the deadline expired, no defence had been lodged and the prerequisites for entering a default judgment were met. The District Court took almost a year to enter a default judgment and did not take any other procedural measures in that time. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that such delay in entering a default judgment is not acceptable under any circumstances and that the judge responsible therefore deserves to be criticised.

In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman makes further general statements about the timing of a default judgment. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the law does not lay down when a default judgement on documentary evidence is to be entered, but that there are several reasons why such a judgment should be issued as soon as possible. In addition to the fact that, inter alia, by law a trial must be conducted within a reasonable time, it is clear from the Supreme Court’s case law on the restoration of time lost that a default judgment order loses its effect as a notification of the time of notification of the judgment if the judgment is not entered relatively soon after the expiry of the time limit. Against that background, and having regard to applicable rules in other cases, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that a judgment by default on documentary evidence should normally be entered within about a week of the date on which the case is ready for judgment.