CF Watchdog | 11 November 2026
A default judgment obtained without a contested trial is now the subject of an application to set it aside. Meanwhile, Michael Jansen has published new statements about the Defendant, including disputed claims concerning his rental history.
On 10 November 2026, technology entrepreneur Michael Jansen distributed an international press release announcing that he had obtained a default judgment against Shane Liddell in the High Court of England and Wales.
The release, distributed through PR Newswire under Jansen’s name, concerns proceedings numbered KB-2026–002990, Michael Jansen and Others v Shane Liddell.
The judgment was entered on 30 September 2026 after Liddell did not file an acknowledgment of service or Defence within the required period.
The judgment was not the result of a contested trial in which both sides presented their evidence.
Liddell disputes the Claimants’ allegations and has filed an urgent application asking the High Court to set aside the judgment and stay enforcement.
The default judgment is being challenged
Liddell’s application relies on CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3 and raises questions about the procedural history of the claim.
According to his witness statement:
– The claim documents were delivered to his current residential address on 21 August 2026.
– The default judgment dated 30 September 2026 continued to identify his former address.
– A notice listing a disposal hearing for 27 October 2026 was also addressed to his former address.
– He states that he did not know about that hearing and did not attend.
– He first received a copy of the default judgment at his current address on 3 November 2026.
Liddell has asked the Court to examine the service records, confirm what occurred at the October hearing, and determine whether the judgment should be set aside.
His application has been sent to the King’s Bench Division, which issued an automated acknowledgment of receipt. That acknowledgment does not confirm that the application has been determined or that enforcement has been stayed.
The default judgment remains effective unless and until the Court makes a further order.
Jansen publishes a press release and Medium article
Jansen’s PR Newswire release describes the judgment as establishing civil liability and states that damages and other remedies remain to be determined.
It also refers to a further disposal hearing expected in early 2027. Liddell says he has not received a court notice confirming that hearing.
The same period has seen the publication of a Medium article by Jansen titled When Online Allegations Cross the Line.
In that article, Jansen discusses efforts to locate Liddell and alleges that he experienced “multiple evictions in the US and the UK.”
Liddell disputes that allegation.
The Medium article does not, in the passage concerning evictions, identify the individual landlords, the dates of the alleged evictions or the court orders said to support the claim.
A landlord reference challenges the portrayal of Liddell’s tenancy
The eviction allegation is particularly contentious because Liddell holds a signed reference dated 24 March 2026 from his former landlord, Robert Noble.
In that reference, Noble stated that Liddell had been a tenant since December 2023, had paid rent on time, had generated no complaints and was recommended as a tenant.
In an email exchange dated 28 April 2026, Noble also confirmed that he had written the reference.
These documents provide relevant evidence about Liddell’s tenancy and challenge any suggestion that Noble had given only an adverse account of him.
However, the reference does not, by itself, establish how the tenancy ended or resolve allegations concerning other properties.
Liddell disputes Jansen’s account and says the underlying facts should be established through the relevant documents and witnesses.
Earlier US proceedings
The current dispute follows litigation in the United States involving Jansen, Cityzenith and Liddell.
In August 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the earlier case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
That dismissal was without prejudice. It did not determine the truth of the parties’ competing allegations.
Liddell says the dispute has had serious financial and personal consequences since 2022, including approximately $20,000 in legal expenses incurred defending the US proceedings.
Those expenses and their legal recoverability have not been determined in the current UK proceedings.
Why the distinction between default judgment and trial matters
A default judgment has legal effect. It cannot be dismissed as meaningless merely because the Defendant did not participate in a contested hearing.
However, it is also important that readers understand how the judgment arose.
In this case, the High Court entered judgment without a full trial of the disputed evidence. The Defendant has now asked the Court to reopen the proceedings.
Whether that application succeeds is for the Court to decide.
Liddell maintains that he has substantive grounds to defend the claims, including issues concerning limitation, the meaning and context of publications, and the Claimants’ allegations of financial harm.
Those matters remain disputed.
“As a committed advocate for investor protection and transparency, I welcome the opportunity to present my evidence before the High Court. I remain confident that the facts deserve to be examined through a fair and open legal process.”
– Shane Liddell
Earlier publicity raises further questions
The November 2026 publicity is not the first time serious allegations about Shane Liddell have appeared in a distributed press release.
On 27 October 2023, PR Fire published a release concerning the earlier US litigation. It alleged fraudulent business conduct, attempts to evade court service, rent fraud and eviction.
The release appeared more than two months after the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the proceedings for lack of personal jurisdiction on 15 August 2023. That dismissal did not determine the underlying allegations.
The release did not explain the dismissal. The identity of the party who commissioned or authorised the publication has not yet been independently verified.
Liddell disputes the allegations and believes the history of these public statements deserves independent scrutiny, particularly in light of the further allegations published in November 2026.
The need for an opportunity to be heard
Liddell has expressed concern that the judgment is being publicised while his application to challenge it awaits determination.
He has also raised concerns about the effect of the publicity on his professional reputation and business activities.
The Court has not yet granted the relief he seeks. That does not mean it has rejected his application.
The immediate questions are whether the default judgment should remain in place, whether enforcement should be stayed, and what opportunity Liddell should have to present his Defence.
The public should understand that the current judgment is under challenge and that the disputed factual allegations have not been tested in a contested trial.
CF Watchdog will report further verified developments, including any decision on the application to set aside the judgment.
— -
Source documents
– High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, claim KB-2026–002990, default judgment dated 30 September 2026.
– Defendant’s N244 application and supporting witness statement, submitted November 2026.
– Michael Jansen, PR Newswire press release, 10 November 2026: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/technology-entrepreneur-michael-jansen-secures-uk-high-court-default-judgment-after-four-year-online-defamation-campaign-302934167.html
– Michael Jansen, When Online Allegations Cross the Line, Medium: https://medium.com/@michaeljansen1969/when-online-allegations-cross-the-line-741cafab803c
– Robert Noble, signed tenant reference dated 24 March 2026 and confirmation email dated 28 April 2026.
– US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case 1:22-cv-05101, Opinion and Order dated 15 August 2023.
Editorial note: This article reports an ongoing legal dispute. Allegations made by either party are identified as allegations unless supported by an established court finding. The Defendant’s application to set aside the judgment remains pending.
