Henry v Sandlewood Aboriginal Projects Limited (No 3) [2021] FCA 728

Henry v Sandlewood Aboriginal Projects Limited (No 3) [2021] FCA 728

Ms Lacey had been served, was fully aware of the proceeding, deliberately elected not to file a defence or participate, failed to attend hearings, and did not defend the proceeding with due diligence, so she was in default under r 5.22. The evidence established that she received $25,000 in meeting fees and $2,495.67 in other payments in circumstances supporting the pleaded claims, and Western Downs was therefore entitled to default judgment for $27,495.67 plus prejudgment interest of $15,696.34, with the judgment sum to be paid into Court unless otherwise ordered and costs awarded against Ms Lacey.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment Under R 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 / Interlocutory Application Heard and Determined on 25 June 2021; Default Judgment on Part of the Seventh Applicant's Claim Against the Fourth Respondent
Outcome
Default judgment entered for the seventh applicant against the fourth respondent on part of its claim, with payment-into-court and costs orders; discovery, mediation and case management orders also made.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'failure to Attend Hearing' "directors' Fiduciary Duties" "directors' Duties Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)" 'indigenous Land Use Agreement Benefits']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'native Title'] ['default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'failure to Attend Hearing' "directors' Fiduciary Duties" "directors' Duties Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)" 'indigenous Land Use Agreement Benefits']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Default Judgment Under R 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 / Interlocutory Application Heard and Determined on 25 June 2021; Default Judgment on Part of the Seventh Applicant's Claim Against the Fourth Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fourth respondent was in default under r 5.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 by failing to file a defence, attend hearings, and defend the proceeding with due diligence.' 'Whether default judgment should be entered under r 5.23 for the seventh applicant against the fourth respondent for payments she received from Western Downs and Sandlewood.' 'Whether the judgment sum should be paid into Court unless otherwise ordered.' "Whether the fourth respondent should pay the applicants' costs of the relevant parts of the proceeding and interlocutory application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Lacey had been served, was fully aware of the proceeding, deliberately elected not to file a defence or participate, failed to attend hearings, and did not defend the proceeding with due diligence, so she was in default under r 5.22. The evidence established that she received $25,000 in meeting fees and $2,495.67 in other payments in circumstances supporting the pleaded claims, and Western Downs was therefore entitled to default judgment for $27,495.67 plus prejudgment interest of $15,696.34, with the judgment sum to be paid into Court unless otherwise ordered and costs awarded against Ms Lacey.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered for the seventh applicant against the fourth respondent on part of its claim, with payment-into-court and costs orders; discovery, mediation and case management orders also made.

Orders

  • ['The parties complete compliance with their obligations to give discovery on or before 9 July 2021.' 'The proceeding be referred to mediation by a mediator agreed between the parties on or before 9 July 2021 and in default of agreement by the Registrar, such mediation to occur on or before 30 September 2021.' 'The...