Stuart Stone
That's pretty much my approach Eamonn O Brien. I do not comprehend the advantage of an ex parte judgement over a default judgement, or the implications:
Both default and ex parte judgments are made in the absence of at least one party involved in a case. In a default judgment, however, the judgment is made when a plaintiff in a civil suit does not respond to a lawsuit claim within a predetermined period of time. In an ex parte situation, the absent party has not chosen to be absent. Instead, ex parte proceedings are held and ex parte court orders issued when a judge decides that the presence of a party in the hearing would cause "irreparable harm" to a different party, according to an explanation from the Farlex Legal Dictionary.
Judgment
In a default judgment, the plaintiff in the relevant case requests a default judgment against a defendant because the defendant has not responded to a claim in the required length of time. If the court chooses to issue a default judgment, it decides the terms of the judgment based on the plaintiff's complaint. In the case of an ex parte hearing, the court also can issue a court order in the absence of one of the parties, but it is typically a temporary order and it does not involve the awarding of damages, as is often the case with a default judgment.
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_7944419_difference-default-ex-parte-judgment.html#ixzz2YS3s946w