![[2025] EWHC 2107 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, I allow the First and Second Defendants’ applications to set aside the default judgments entered against them on 2nd September 2024 pursuant to CPR rule 13.2.
Had I dismissed the application under CPR rule 13.2, I would have allowed the application to set aside the default judgments under CPR rule 13.3.
I am very grateful to all counsel for their very helpful written and oral submissions. I will address consequential issues separately.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Discussions leading towards the Facility Agreement
- The terms of the Facility Agreement
- The Claimant’s claim under the guarantees
- Legal proceedings brought by the Claimant
- The First and Second Defendants’ Defences
- Entry of Default Judgments
- The Application to set aside the Default Judgments under CPR rule 13.2
- The First and Second Defendants’ submissions
- The Claimant’s submissions
- Determination of the application under CPR rule 13.2
- Are the First and Second Defendants parties to the Facility Agreement?
- Was notification of the appointment of Law Debenture sufficient?
- Is clause 40.2.2 an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ?
- Enforceability under Consumer Credit legislation
- Conclusion
- The Application to set aside the Default Judgments under CPR rule 13.3
- The First and Second Defendants’ submissions
- The Claimant’s submissions
- Determination of the application under CPR rule 13.3
- Do the First and Second Defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim?
- Was the application made promptly?
- The exercise of discretion under CPR rule 13.3
- The Claimant’s application for a conditional order
- Conclusions