{"issue_text":"Whether applicant was in wilful default","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Service of notice on former lawyers, renunciation of agency, failure to notify applicant"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the application for rescission is bona fide","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant's explanation blaming former lawyers"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant has prospects of success on merits","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Defence that interest was usurious"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought rescission of a default judgment granted on 19 July 2017, claiming its former legal practitioners failed to notify it of the trial set down date after renouncing agency. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant was wilfully in default and had been notified to collect the notice of set down.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases