5 Sept 2025
Adopting Harbour Hero, the court held the defendant's merits were disclosed by the defendant's first affirmation dated 26 February 2025, therefore the plaintiffs recover costs incurred up to that date (including perusal); costs of resisting the setting aside application thereafter, including the 7 July 2025 hearing, are to be borne by the plaintiffs.
30 May 2022
The fixed-term tenancy expired on 25 October 2019 by effluxion of time; the contractual notice requirement did not extend the tenancy; the defendant failed to demonstrate any real prospect of success to set aside the regularly entered default judgment, therefore the Master's order setting aside that judgment was replaced with the order sought by the plaintiff.
6 Sept 2019
The application to extend time was refused because the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for a two month delay against a 14 day limit, absence of prejudice is not a proper ground, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success.
31 Oct 2017
Service by insertion into the letter box at Address 3 on 16 June 2016 validly served the re-amended writs under Order 10 rule 1(2); defendant failed to produce convincing evidence that the proceedings were not brought to his attention and failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on liability; accordingly the setting aside summonses are dismissed and default judgments stand.
3 Jun 2011
The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the short delay was inexcusable — the plaintiff had correct legal advice and failed to verify his misunderstanding — and, in any event, he had no real prospect of success on the proposed appeal given that the Recorder's findings of fact and legal conclusions (principal-to-principal relationship, loss calculation, rejection of lien and consequential loss/indemnity) had proper evidential basis.