Summary judgment — application to set aside — appearance — miscarriage of justice — District Court Rules 2014, r 12.14 — R P Stainton v King House Removals (Southland) Limited (1999) 13 PRNZ 202 — Heartland Bank Ltd v Attri & Sons Ltd [2021] NZDC 8364 — Rothwell v Mawhinney [1998] 2 NZLR 87 — Erwood v Glasgow Harley [2002] 1 NZLR 251. The respondents applied to have the summary judgment which been entered against them set aside. The summary judgment decision had also been appealed by the respondents. In considering an application to set aside a summary judgment, the Court had to consider, firstly, whether an "appearance" was made when the matter was called at the hearing and, secondly, whether there has or may have been a miscarriage of justice. The Judge concluded that an appearance by and on behalf of the defendants did occur and therefore did not need to consider the merits of the case. This would be for consideration by the High Court on appeal. Having found that there was an appearance by and on behalf of the defendants the Judge did not have jurisdiction to set aside the summary judgment and declined the application. Judgment Date: 1 February 2022.