Copson v Nedbank Limited (4771/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 734 (11 September 2014)

Copson v Nedbank Limited (4771/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 734 (11 September 2014)

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default, namely that he did not receive the summons due to vacating his chosen domicilium address and was unaware of the proceedings until the sheriff's visit. Although the applicant was negligent in failing to notify the respondent of his change of address, the court held that he did not deliberately refrain from entering an appearance and was not in wilful default. The application for rescission was brought within the prescribed 20-day period after the applicant became aware of the judgment. On the merits, the applicant raised triable issues regarding the calculation of amounts due, the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 734
Parties
Applicant: Jeremy Andrew Copson; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2014
Case Number
4771/14
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Under Rule 31(2)(b)
Outcome
Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded.
Judges
Molefe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Rule 31 2 B, Wilful Default, Bona Fide Defence, Excussion
Civil Procedure Rescission of Default Judgment Rule 31 2 B Wilful Default Bona Fide Defence Excussion

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Andrew Copson

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Under Rule 31(2)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for his default in failing to defend the main action.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence with prospects of success to the respondent's claims.
  3. 3 Whether the application for rescission was brought within the prescribed time period under Rule 31(2)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default, namely that he did not receive the summons due to vacating his chosen domicilium address and was unaware of the proceedings until the sheriff's visit. Although the applicant was negligent in failing to notify the respondent of his change of address, the court held that he did not deliberately refrain from entering an appearance and was not in wilful default. The application for rescission was brought within the prescribed 20-day period after the applicant became aware of the judgment. On the merits, the applicant raised triable issues regarding the calculation of amounts due, the...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded.

Orders

  • The default judgment granted against the applicant on 25 October 2013 is rescinded and set aside.
  • The applicant is ordered to enter an appearance to defend within 10 days of this order.