Bhundia v Sommers and Neylon (No.2)

In the case of Bhundia v Sommers and Neylon (No.2), the applicant, Mr Bhundia, sought an order for security for costs from the respondents, Sommers and Neylon. This followed a previous case where a default judgment had been entered against him. Additionally, Mr Bhundia applied to set aside the default judgment, arguing that he had a bona fide defence to the claims made against him. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had failed to provide necessary evidence to support his application for security for costs and whether the delay in bringing the application to set aside the default judgment was adequately explained.

The court found that Mr Bhundia had not provided the required evidence detailing the costs that would be incurred, nor had he explained the delay in bringing the application for security for costs. The court also noted that Mr Bhundia had not yet engaged full legal representation, which impacted his ability to adequately address the financial risks involved. Regarding the application to set aside the default judgment, the court highlighted the eleven-month delay in bringing the application, which was not adequately explained. Furthermore, adverse credit findings had been made against Mr Bhundia, and the court found that the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the default judgment were set aside.

Consequently, the court dismissed both the application for security for costs and the application to set aside the default judgment. The dismissal of the application for security for costs was due to the lack of necessary evidence and explanation for the delay. The dismissal of the application to set aside the default judgment was because of the significant delay, lack of a bona fide defence, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff. The court did not make any specific orders regarding the costs of the applications, as both were dismissed.