{"issue_text":"Whether the first and second applicants can apply for rescission of default judgment under r 449 (1) (a) when they failed to defend the action","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicants were served but did not defend; judgment granted in their absence"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the joinder of the third applicant was procedurally proper","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Zhou J directed joinder under r 87 (2) (b); third applicant was served"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants sold a property to the second respondent who then sold it to the first respondent. The applicants later cancelled the agreement and sold the property to the third applicant. The respondents sued and obtained default judgment against all three applicants. The first and second applicants now seek rescission of that default judgment.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases