Default Judgment
Default Judgment
Thereafter VCT issued these proceedings by a Claim Form dated 28 March 2024 and Particulars of Claim seeking payment pursuant to the terms of the guarantees given by Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak.
No Acknowledgements of Service or Defences having been filed, judgment in default for the sum of £1,276,033.09 was entered against both Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak on 24 April 2024. It is the Default Judgment against Mrs Bandak which is the subject of this Application.
The Default Judgment is a regular judgment. It is not disputed that 46 St Quintin Avenue was at all material times Mrs Bandak’s home address and the address for service specified in the Guarantee. The Claim Form was posted on 3 April 2024 to 46 St Quintin Avenue by first class post. Deemed service was on 5 April 2024: see CPR rr.6.14 and 7.5(1). The Default Judgment was duly entered on 24 April 2024.
On 31 May 2024, VCT applied for interim charging orders to be entered against Mr Emmett and Mrs Bandak’s beneficial interests in the property at 46 St Quintin Avenue.
On 10 June 2024, Master Sullivan granted interim charging orders over the 46 St Quintin Avenue property and listed them for further consideration on 26 July 2024. These orders were sealed by the court on 20 June 2024.
Mrs Banadak received a copy of the interim charging order against her interest on 25 June 2024 under cover of a letter sent to her at 46 St Quinin Avenue. She says that this is the first time that she learnt of the existence of these proceedings.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Background
- Corben Mews Facility Agreement
- Guarantee
- Solicitor’s Certificate
- Wider factual matrix
- November 2019 Facility Agreement
- 2019 Charge
- Divorce and Financial Remedy Order
- May 2021 Facility Agreement
- Default
- Default Judgment
- The Application
- Submissions
- Second Defendant
- Claimant
- Legal framework
- Real prospect of success
- Some other good reason
- Undue influence
- The test
- Discussion and analysis
- Is there a presumed relationship of undue influence of Mr Emmett over Mrs Bandak?
- Was the Guarantee to Mrs Bandak’s manifest disadvantage?
- Was CPF One put on inquiry?
- Mrs Bandak acted of her own free will
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)