HT Contracting v Palta

The case of HT Contracting v Palta involved a dispute over a default judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff, HT Contracting, against the first defendant, Palta. The plaintiff sought to enforce a loan agreement through the court after the borrower, 79 Grand Hotel, failed to repay the loan. Palta, who had executed a Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity, applied to set aside the default judgment on the grounds that it was irregularly entered, and that he had a satisfactory explanation for his failure to file a notice of intention to defend in time. The court was required to determine whether the default judgment was irregularly entered, whether Palta had provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to file a notice of intention to defend, and whether Palta had a prima facie defence on the merits. The court found that the default judgment was not irregularly entered as it was made under the correct rule. However, Palta provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to file a notice of intention to defend in time, and the court found that Palta had a prima facie defence on the merits. As a result, the court set aside the default judgment and ordered Palta to file and serve any Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence by a specified date. The court also scheduled a hearing to determine the costs of the proceeding.