Talk:Default judgment

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article discusses only English/Welsh law on the matter, but Scottish, American, and Australian courts generally have different interpretations on the matter... never mind those on the European continent, for example. How do they compare? 147.70.242.40 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, I find it unclear whether most of the article is meant to be restricted to England and Wales, or whether the subsections have simply been indented improperly. Please clarify this in the article, perhaps by repeatedly starting the subsections with "In England and Wales," if that is what was intended.

Also, shouldn't there be at least one OTHER jurisdiction listed, to justify the indentation? Otherwise, the article should be retitled or the introduction should explain the article only pertains to one region. Parsiferon 00:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says in practice that relief is usually granted. Are there any statistics regarding judges granting versus denial of motions to set aside, for state civil courts, for motions made in compliance with the rules of procedure? jleot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleot (talk • contribs) 02:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Default judgment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202085839/http://www.lupoloverlaw.com/home/blog/146-debt-collection-through-sewer-service to http://www.lupoloverlaw.com/home/blog/146-debt-collection-through-sewer-service
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/apr/apr14a_09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is sued -- let's assume for the sake of argument that the complaint is obviously without merit -- and cannot appear because they are too poor to make the trip to the court or hire a lawyer, does that mean that they automatically lose and own the person who sued them whatever they claimed damages are? Or does the court look at the case and rule on its merits whether of not both parties show up? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit I submitted regarding the definition of default judgements deleted by another user when my edit is based on a court judgement sey down on the 13th November 2020. People need to be aware that the law has changed regarding default judgements because a defendant no longer has to reply to an application made against then and that the applicant can be punished for complying with court rules and procedures. The decision was handed down in the Federal Circuit Court in Melbourne Australia under court file number MLG3821 of 2019. It is now precedent law that can be used by any defendant that does not wish to comply with a court action. Skinman17 (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to have that paragraph in the beginning of the article when it's very specific and the scope of the article is about default judgments in general. Mentioning the court procedures leading to the decision also seems unnecessary, and the information for the other countries doesn't include it either. If you want, you can create a section under "Specific Jurisdictions" for Australia and mention the ruling. Additionally, do you have any articles or sources to use for this new information? They would be useful. Autonaut333 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]