04-27-2026, 12:25 PM
This changes the analysis materially.
It is no longer a simple point that judgment was entered on a defended claim and that was the end of it. CNBC are now saying the Defence was received and processed, a DQ was issued, a sanctions order was then made for failure to return the DQ, and the Defence was struck out on 21 January 2026. On that version of events, the claimant will say they were entitled to request judgment after the Defence had been struck out.
So the address issue now matters more than it did before, because the obvious explanation is that the DQ, sanctions order and strike-out order all went to the old address and were never seen.
That said, there are still important problems in CNBC’s account.
First, the judgment wording saying you “did not reply to the claim form” is still plainly wrong if you did in fact file an Acknowledgment of Service and Defence. Even if the Defence was later struck out, that is not the same thing as never having replied to the claim form.
Second, if the Defence was struck out because documents were sent to an address you were no longer at, the real question becomes whether the strike-out and everything that followed should now be set aside because you did not receive those documents and therefore had no fair opportunity to comply.
Third, their email contains at least one obvious date problem. A sanctions order supposedly issued on 9 December 2026 before a strike-out on 21 January 2026 is impossible. That is almost certainly meant to be 9 December 2025, but it shows you now need the actual orders and notices, not just CNBC’s summary.
So the N244 is still the correct vehicle, but the application now needs to be framed more carefully. It should no longer be presented only as “judgment wrongly entered because a Defence already existed”. It now needs to say, in substance, that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service and Defence, then moved and did not receive the DQ, sanctions order or strike-out order, your Defence was struck out in your absence because those documents were sent to your old address, judgment then followed, and you acted promptly once you discovered it. The court should therefore set aside the judgment and also set aside the strike-out and related sanctions so the claim can be properly defended.
So yes, a judge could now say that failing to notify the court and DCB Legal of the address change contributed to the problem. That point has more force now than it did on the earlier understanding. But it is still not fatal. The key is to be frank about it, not defensive, and make clear that this was not deliberate non-engagement.
You do, however, now have to look at the cost position realistically. The prospects of getting the judgment set aside are still decent, but the prospects of recovering the N244 fee are no longer nearly as strong as before. A judge may well say that, even if the judgment and strike-out should be undone, the application became necessary in part because you failed to update your address during live proceedings. That means there is a real possibility that you succeed on the application but still do not recover the £313 fee. So the application remains arguable and may well succeed, but it is no longer sensible to treat fee recovery as a near-certainty.
That said, there is an important point in your favour on costs. Once DCB Legal were told what had happened, you offered them the opportunity to deal with matters by consent, which would have been the cheaper and more proportionate route. Instead of engaging with that promptly and properly, they deferred and still have not taken meaningful corrective action. That matters. Even if a judge concludes that your failure to update your address contributed to the original problem, DCB Legal’s later failure to cooperate with the cheaper consent route can still be relied on as a separate reason why the court should order them to bear some or all of the application fee. In other words, your earlier omission may explain how matters got into this mess, but their later conduct can still be criticised for forcing a more expensive contested application when a cheaper route had been put in front of them.
That in turn means there is now a practical decision to make. If the 30-day window to pay the CCJ is still open, then paying it may be the cheaper short-term exit. If, however, your priority is to remove the judgment and restore your chance to defend the claim properly, the N244 remains the proper route, but you should go into it on the basis that the fee may not come back even if you win. The fee position is now arguable rather than secure.
The immediate next step is to get the actual documents CNBC refer to: the DQ notice, the sanctions order, the strike-out order, and confirmation of the address each was sent to. Once those are seen, the witness statement and draft order can be corrected properly. The application is still very arguable, but it is now a different application from the one we were drafting earlier, and the costs risk must be factored into the decision.
It is no longer a simple point that judgment was entered on a defended claim and that was the end of it. CNBC are now saying the Defence was received and processed, a DQ was issued, a sanctions order was then made for failure to return the DQ, and the Defence was struck out on 21 January 2026. On that version of events, the claimant will say they were entitled to request judgment after the Defence had been struck out.
So the address issue now matters more than it did before, because the obvious explanation is that the DQ, sanctions order and strike-out order all went to the old address and were never seen.
That said, there are still important problems in CNBC’s account.
First, the judgment wording saying you “did not reply to the claim form” is still plainly wrong if you did in fact file an Acknowledgment of Service and Defence. Even if the Defence was later struck out, that is not the same thing as never having replied to the claim form.
Second, if the Defence was struck out because documents were sent to an address you were no longer at, the real question becomes whether the strike-out and everything that followed should now be set aside because you did not receive those documents and therefore had no fair opportunity to comply.
Third, their email contains at least one obvious date problem. A sanctions order supposedly issued on 9 December 2026 before a strike-out on 21 January 2026 is impossible. That is almost certainly meant to be 9 December 2025, but it shows you now need the actual orders and notices, not just CNBC’s summary.
So the N244 is still the correct vehicle, but the application now needs to be framed more carefully. It should no longer be presented only as “judgment wrongly entered because a Defence already existed”. It now needs to say, in substance, that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service and Defence, then moved and did not receive the DQ, sanctions order or strike-out order, your Defence was struck out in your absence because those documents were sent to your old address, judgment then followed, and you acted promptly once you discovered it. The court should therefore set aside the judgment and also set aside the strike-out and related sanctions so the claim can be properly defended.
So yes, a judge could now say that failing to notify the court and DCB Legal of the address change contributed to the problem. That point has more force now than it did on the earlier understanding. But it is still not fatal. The key is to be frank about it, not defensive, and make clear that this was not deliberate non-engagement.
You do, however, now have to look at the cost position realistically. The prospects of getting the judgment set aside are still decent, but the prospects of recovering the N244 fee are no longer nearly as strong as before. A judge may well say that, even if the judgment and strike-out should be undone, the application became necessary in part because you failed to update your address during live proceedings. That means there is a real possibility that you succeed on the application but still do not recover the £313 fee. So the application remains arguable and may well succeed, but it is no longer sensible to treat fee recovery as a near-certainty.
That said, there is an important point in your favour on costs. Once DCB Legal were told what had happened, you offered them the opportunity to deal with matters by consent, which would have been the cheaper and more proportionate route. Instead of engaging with that promptly and properly, they deferred and still have not taken meaningful corrective action. That matters. Even if a judge concludes that your failure to update your address contributed to the original problem, DCB Legal’s later failure to cooperate with the cheaper consent route can still be relied on as a separate reason why the court should order them to bear some or all of the application fee. In other words, your earlier omission may explain how matters got into this mess, but their later conduct can still be criticised for forcing a more expensive contested application when a cheaper route had been put in front of them.
That in turn means there is now a practical decision to make. If the 30-day window to pay the CCJ is still open, then paying it may be the cheaper short-term exit. If, however, your priority is to remove the judgment and restore your chance to defend the claim properly, the N244 remains the proper route, but you should go into it on the basis that the fee may not come back even if you win. The fee position is now arguable rather than secure.
The immediate next step is to get the actual documents CNBC refer to: the DQ notice, the sanctions order, the strike-out order, and confirmation of the address each was sent to. Once those are seen, the witness statement and draft order can be corrected properly. The application is still very arguable, but it is now a different application from the one we were drafting earlier, and the costs risk must be factored into the decision.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
