The Court refused to set aside a default judgment of $584,736.36 where the defendant had made effectively full admissions of the debt through her solicitors' correspondence proposing payment plans, and the proposed defence — that cash amounts received were less than those claimed — was found to be untenable given the defendant's failure to raise it at any earlier stage despite being legally represented. The Court held that setting aside the judgment would be futile in the circumstances, as the admissions posed an almost impossible obstacle for the defendant to overcome, and there was no irregularity, lack of good faith, or denial of procedural fairness in the entry of judgment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.