![[2025] EWHC 2107 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
The Claimant’s application for a conditional order
The Claimant’s application for a conditional order
The Claimant submitted that if the default judgments are to be set aside, it should be on condition that the First and Second Defendants pay the judgment sum into court pursuant to CPR rule 3.5(1).
CPR rule 3.5(1) provides that “The court may order a party to pay a sum of money into court if that party has, without good reason, failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or a relevant pre-action protocol”.
As explained above, I do not consider that the First and Second Defendants failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules in not filing an acknowledgment of service or serving a defence without good reason. They did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, because they were not aware that proceedings had been served until after the default judgments were entered.
- 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