The Application
The Application
By an application notice dated 18 July 2024, Mrs Bandak seeks:
“to set aside the Default Judgment obtained by [VCT] against [Mrs Bandak] on 24 April 2024, with regard to (lack of) service and that [Mrs Bandak] has a good Defence to the Claim”.
Mrs Bandak now concedes the Default Judgment is a regular judgment and no longer challenges it on grounds of invalid service, but, as I mentioned at the outset, she says there is some other good reason to set aside the Default Judgment, namely that she only became aware of the Claim Form after judgment was entered against her, and that she has real prospect of successfully defending the Claim.
She relies upon her witness statements dated 18 July 2024 and 18 November 2024, together with those of her solicitor Oliver Dykes dated 18 July 2024, 18 November 2024, and 19 June 2025.
Shortly put, Mrs Bandak’s evidence is as follows:
Although she was appointed director of some of the Click Group companies, she was not involved in their activities or the decision-making of the companies.
She placed trust and confidence in Mr Emmett in relation to financial affairs which impacted on their children.
She did not see any application or other document relating to the Corben Mews Facility Agreement.
She signed the Guarantee in the presence of Mr Fahri, a solicitor, but did not receive any advice from him in respect of the Guarantee or an explanation of what the document meant.
Mr Emmett was present at the meeting with Mr Fahri.
She has never had any beneficial interest in Corben Mews.
She has no idea what Corben Mews did with the money it borrowed through the Corben Mews Facility Agreement.
The Application is opposed by VCT. It filed and served a witness statement from Amy Rickman, the head of servicing at CPF One (which continues to manage the Loan Facility on VCT’s behalf) dated 13 November 2024, together with witness statements from its solicitor David Hitchcock dated 13 November 2024 and 11 June 2025.
- 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)