sale in executiondwellinggreat hardshipreasonable offerr 71(14)r 71(15)r 71(18)
Tags
executionsale in executionsuspension of salegreat hardshipreasonable offer
legislation
Statutes Cited
High Court Rules, 2021
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Do the applicants satisfy the jurisdictional requirements under r 71(18) for suspension of sale in execution?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Occupation, alleged great hardship, offer of USD10,000 monthly"}
{"issue_text":"Will the applicants and their family suffer great hardship if the dwelling is sold?","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Eight occupants, medical condition, elderly resident, no alternative home"}
{"issue_text":"Is the offer of USD10,000 per month a reasonable offer to settle the judgment debt?","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Debt doubled, no payments made under offer, history of broken promises"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants sought suspension of sale in execution of their dwelling under r 71(14)-(18) after defaulting on a deed of settlement and subsequent default judgment. They claimed great hardship and offered monthly payments of USD10,000. The court found no great hardship and the offer unreasonable.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases