Wong v. Multani & Caldeira Developments Inc.

Wong v. Multani & Caldeira Developments Inc.

Even if personal service on May 27, 2021 was disputed, Mr. Singh had knowledge of the Claim before that date; his failure to respond was negligent rather than wilful; he acted promptly upon learning of the default judgment; he has arguable defences worthy of investigation; balancing the Miracle Feeds factors and the interests of justice, the default judgment as to Mr. Singh should be set aside and he must be allowed to file a response.

Citation
2023 BCSC 483
Parties
Plaintiff: Roger Wong; Plaintiff: Cecilia Wong; Defendant: Multani & Caldeira Developments Inc.; Defendant: Hael Construction Inc.; Defendant: Lakhwinder Singh also known as Michael Singh or Michael Multani
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (construction Dispute) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Default judgment varied to remove defendant Lakhwinder Singh from judgment for damages; defendant directed to file a response
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Process, Meritorious Defence, Timeliness of Application, Interests of Justice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Construction Law Corporate Law Equity and Fiduciary Duty Setting Aside Default Judgment Service of Process Meritorious Defence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Wong

Plaintiff

Cecilia Wong

Plaintiff

Multani & Caldeira Developments Inc.

Defendant

Hael Construction Inc.

Defendant

Lakhwinder Singh also known as Michael Singh or Michael Multani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (construction Dispute) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was validly served with the claim
  2. 2 Whether the defendant wilfully or deliberately failed to file a defence
  3. 3 Whether the application to set aside was brought promptly

Ratio Decidendi

Even if personal service on May 27, 2021 was disputed, Mr. Singh had knowledge of the Claim before that date; his failure to respond was negligent rather than wilful; he acted promptly upon learning of the default judgment; he has arguable defences worthy of investigation; balancing the Miracle Feeds factors and the interests of justice, the default judgment as to Mr. Singh should be set aside and he must be allowed to file a response.

Court Disposition

Default judgment varied to remove defendant Lakhwinder Singh from judgment for damages; defendant directed to file a response

Orders

  • Default judgment dated September 29, 2021 varied to remove the order that the defendant Lakhwinder Singh (also known as Michael Singh or Michael Multani) pay damages
  • Defendant Lakhwinder Singh to file and serve a response to the Claim within seven days from the date of judgment