Farage to appeal county court judgment over unpaid £9,400 bill

A county court judgment over an unpaid £9,400 bill has put Nigel Farage under fresh scrutiny, after Reform UK said he will appeal on the grounds that he never knew the claim existed. The judgment was made on 13 June 2024, and Farage has now instructed lawyers to try to have it set aside.

Reform UK said the claim was sent to the wrong address, which it says explains why the case became a default judgment. Channel 4 News said Reform UK told it that Farage “never received notification of the claim” and only learned of the judgment when the broadcaster brought it to his attention. Farage has also said he does not know what the debt relates to, leaving unanswered who filed the claim and what service was meant to cover.

The case matters because a county court judgment is not a private dispute hidden from view. CCJs are public records and can remain on a person’s credit file for six years, a mark that can complicate borrowing, renting and wider financial credibility. GOV.UK says a judgment can be cancelled if the person did not receive, or did not respond to, the original claim, which is the route Farage’s lawyers are now pursuing. A successful application would challenge the default ruling; without it, the judgment continues to stand and to carry the usual financial consequences.

The episode lands at a sensitive moment for Farage, whose finances have already come under tighter public attention after it emerged he accepted a £5 million gift from a crypto billionaire. For a national political figure who has made transparency part of his political brand, the question is not only whether the judgment can be overturned, but whether his handling of personal finances meets the standard voters are entitled to expect.

It is also not the first time Farage has faced a county court default judgment. In a separate case, the county court in Plymouth ordered him to pay Catherine Blaiklock, the original founder of the Brexit Party, £9,999 in compensation plus £455 costs after he failed to respond to papers sent against him. Taken together, the cases raise broader questions about disclosure, financial management and accountability in public life, especially when court records show repeated failures to answer claims before judgment is entered.