Read the full judgment text of CACV 177/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 March 1994 before Litton JA, Bokhary JA, Godfrey JA.
Civil procedure – setting aside of default judgment – Order 13 rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court – third-party indemnity proceedings – sub-contractor garment supplier – short-delivery and non-delivery under supply contracts – summary judgment against defendant under Order 14 – third party filed no notice of intention to defend – Master entered default judgment in third-party proceedings – whether the Master had jurisdiction – Order 16 rule 5 vs Order 16 rule 7 – error in summonses citing wrong rule did not oust jurisdiction – test for setting aside regular default judgment – real prospect of success, not merely arguable defence – defendant as mere intermediary versus sub-contractor – delay and loss of execution opportunity as relevant factors – locus standi of plaintiffs (garnishors) to resist setting aside – garnishee order creates equitable charge over judgment debt – legal interest, not merely commercial interest – appeals allowed; indemnity judgments restored; costs to plaintiffs. (Per Litton, Bokhary and Godfrey JJA, allowing the appeals.)
Legal issues: Whether the Master had jurisdiction to enter the third-party indemnity judgments · Whether Li's defence had a real prospect of success warranting setting aside the default judgment · Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to resist setting aside the third-party judgments
Outcome: Appeals allowed; the indemnity judgments entered by Master Woolley restored; orders of Deputy Judge Griffiths QC set aside.