[2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm)

Fecha: 30-Jul-2025

Claimant

39.

Mr Moraes submits the Application should be dismissed with costs. He argues Mrs Bandak’s contention that she has a defence based on undue influence has no reasonable prospects of success for four reasons:

(1)

There was no relationship of presumed undue influence between Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak. Over a year prior to the Guarantee, they had divorced and had entered into a Financial Remedy Order in the Family Court which brought about a final settlement between them on all financial matters.

(2)

The Guarantee, in the circumstances prevailing, was not a transaction that called for an explanation; i.e. it was not manifestly to Mrs Bandak’s disadvantage.

(3)

CPF One did not have actual or constructive notice of any undue influence.

(4)

In any event, Mrs Bandak had the opportunity to and did receive independent face-to-face legal advice as to the nature and consequences of the Guarantee, prior to entering into the Guarantee.

40.

Mr Moraes submits there is no other reason why the Default Judgment should be set aside. He submits Mrs Bandak has no reasonable prospect of satisfying the court that she should be granted relief from sanctions, or that the court should exercise its discretion in her favour.