The moving defendants sought to set aside a default judgment obtained against them in a civil action alleging fraud, conspiracy, oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Applying the principles governing motions to set aside default judgments, the court considered whether the motion was brought promptly, whether there was a plausible explanation for the default, and whether the defendants had an arguable defence on the merits, along with prejudice and the interests of justice.
The court found the defendants failed to provide a credible explanation for their failure to defend after service and had not demonstrated a substantive defence to the pleaded allegations.
The draft statement of defence contained only general denials and no evidentiary response to the serious allegations underlying the judgment.
In the absence of an arguable defence and adequate explanation for the default, the interests of justice did not favour setting aside the judgment.
