Victoria Capital Trust v Emmett [2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm) (30 July 2025)

Victoria Capital Trust v Emmett [2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm) (30 July 2025)

The court found Mrs Bandak had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. There was no relationship of presumed undue influence between her and Mr Emmett at the time of the guarantee, given their divorce and financial settlement. The guarantee was not to her manifest disadvantage, as she was an equal shareholder and director in the relevant company group and stood to benefit from the refinancing. CPF One was not put on inquiry as to undue influence, and in any event, Mrs Bandak received independent legal advice. There was no other good reason to set aside the regular default judgment.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Victoria Capital Trust; First Defendant: Aaron John Emmett; Second Defendant/applicant: Anita Emmett (now Anita Bandak)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (debt Recovery Under Personal Guarantee) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Application to set aside default judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Personal Guarantee, Undue Influence, Relief From Sanctions
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Personal Guarantee Undue Influence Relief From Sanctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victoria Capital Trust

Claimant/respondent

Aaron John Emmett

First Defendant

Anita Emmett (now Anita Bandak)

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (debt Recovery Under Personal Guarantee) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim under CPR r.13.3(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether there is some other good reason to set aside the default judgment under CPR r.13.3(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the personal guarantee was procured by undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Mrs Bandak had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. There was no relationship of presumed undue influence between her and Mr Emmett at the time of the guarantee, given their divorce and financial settlement. The guarantee was not to her manifest disadvantage, as she was an equal shareholder and director in the relevant company group and stood to benefit from the refinancing. CPF One was not put on inquiry as to undue influence, and in any event, Mrs Bandak received independent legal advice. There was no other good reason to set aside the regular default judgment.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Default judgment against Second Defendant stands
  • Costs awarded to Claimant/Respondent