When exercising the discretion to set aside a default judgment entered for non-compliance with a springing order, the court must give positive weight to the merits of a fairly arguable case rather than treating it as a neutral factor. Delays attributable to the need to obtain legal aid funding and the actions of third parties such as expert witnesses are relevant explanatory factors. Findings of contumelious conduct or deceit against solicitors should not be drawn without direct evidence and an opportunity to respond, and should not be inferred merely from unexplained non-compliance with interlocutory orders where compliance depends on third parties. The fact that the limitation period has not expired is a relevant consideration favouring the grant of an extension.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.