In the complex realm of litigation, the difference between a default judgment and a regular court judgement holds important and distinct associations. Understanding these differences is crucial for anyone navigating the complex details of legal proceedings. A default judgment is often viewed as a more severe outcome, it identifies the specific amount owed to the claimant, while a regular judgment arises from a fully contested proceeding. The process of setting aside a default judgment adds another layer of complexity to this legal landscape.

​

What is a default judgment?

​

A default judgment is:

​

1. issued by the court and when you fail to respond to a court claim or attend a court hearing within the specified period or date.

2. usually an order granted in favour of the Claimant should you fail to act or respond

3. where you may not have had the opportunity to present your case or defend yourself leading to the judgment in default being made in your absence.

4. often issued by the court when you fail to acknowledge the claim or submit a defence to the legal action within the required period.

 

What is a regular court judgment?

​

A regular court judgment is:

​

1. Issued after all parties to the legal proceedings have had the opportunity to present their case, provide evidence and defend their position in court.

2. Both you and the claimant have participated in the legal proceedings

3. The judgement has been based upon the evidence, arguments presented by parties during the trial or hearing.

4. The result of a fair hearing and all the parties have had the opportunity to present their side of the case.

 

In summary, the key difference between a default judgment and a regular judgment lies in the level of participation and defence that has been afforded to you. A judgement in default is issued if you fail to engage in the legal process, while the regular judgement follows a comprehensive legal procedure involving the active participation from all parties.

​

​

​

​

​

Winnie Onyekwere

​

​