30 Mar 2021
The summary judgment application was dismissed because the plaintiff's claims against the second and fourth defendants had already been struck out and the proceedings against them dismissed on 15 October 2020, so there was no obligation for those defendants to file defences; the plaintiff's non‑attendance and lack of factual basis warranted dismissal and an order for costs.
8 Oct 2008
Defendants did not comply with the court order nor adduce evidence to justify an extension of time and their defences disclose no arguable defence to the passing-off claims; consequently the applications to deem the late defences properly served are refused and the Plaintiffs' applications for default judgment are allowed.
8 Oct 2008
Defendants did not seek an extension nor provide evidence to justify indulgence, the late fax did not comply with the court order, and the defences disclosed no arguable defence; therefore the court dismissed the defendants' application to deem service and granted the plaintiffs' orders in the form sought, including costs.
23 Jul 1999
The Master was correct to set aside the default judgment conditionally because the Defendants had arguable defences — in particular, it was arguable that the 2nd Defendant was not bound by the written agreement, that the contractual construction (lump sum versus severable) was in dispute, and that alleged defective performance could entitle the Defendants to diminution or counterclaim — therefore conditional relief (payment into court) was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.