CPR 15.3 states that if a defendant fails to file a defence, the claimant may obtain default judgment and CPR 16.5(5) states that if a Defendant fails to respond to an allegation, they are deemed to have admit that allegation.

Whilst it would seem a logical extension that failure to respond to a defence would result in deemed acceptance of the account, this is not the case as recently exemplified in Zanatta v Metroline Travel Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 224.

The case concerned a claim from a pedestrian against a bus company following the pedestrian being hit by a bus. The Court of Appeal considered this claim after HHJ Shetty in the High Court found in favour of the Defendant, dismissing the claim as he would have assessed contributory negligence at 70%.

The appeal was dismissed, but what is of keen interest as a result of this case is a remark from Lady Justice Andrews:

“52. The fact that the claimant did not serve a Reply did not mean that it could be assumed by the defendant, let alone the judge, that the version of events pleaded in the Defence was accepted. In fact, the bus driver's evidence was criticised at trial as being unreliable, because of variations in his accounts over time, and the judge was urged to treat it with caution. The claimant was fully entitled to make those submissions, but she would not have been if the version of the facts pleaded in the Defence (based on the driver's witness statement) had been common ground...”

Whilst at first blush this does not seem to be the natural conclusion, this position is not only enshrined in CPR 16.7, but also protects Claimants from being forced to spurious or unfounded Overall this means that where Defences genuinely have no basis, there is no obligation to entertain them.