Where a self-represented litigant has had summary judgment entered against them after repeated failures to file a competent defence, the subsequent obtaining of legal representation and a sworn undertaking to remain represented may constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant setting aside the summary judgment and permitting re-pleading. However, the distinction between standard and indemnity costs in such circumstances remains fact-dependent: a self-represented defendant doing their incompetent best to defend may not warrant indemnity costs, though this was contested (Chesterman JA dissenting).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.