The Court refused to set aside default judgments against the First and Second Defendants in mortgage possession proceedings, finding that neither had adduced evidence of facts supporting their proposed defences of unconscionability, unjustness under the Contracts Review Act, and asset-based lending, particularly where the defendants had executed statutory declarations confirming they understood the loan documents, acted voluntarily, and received independent legal advice. The Third Defendant's Defence was struck out as embarrassing under UCPR r 14.28 for failing to plead material facts beyond bare assertions, but he was granted one further opportunity to replead and file an affidavit explaining the circumstances of his execution of the deed and statutory declaration. Indemnity costs were awarded against the First and Second Defendants pursuant to a contractual costs clause in the loan deed, the language of which was found to be sufficiently plain and unambiguous.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.