Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel [2019] FCA 1965

Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel [2019] FCA 1965

The second cross-respondent was in default because it failed to file a defence, failed to appear, and was not defending the cross-claim with due diligence. On inspection of the cross-claim, the Court was satisfied that the cross-claimant was entitled to judgment for $325,000, with pre-judgment interest awarded under s 51A(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment on a Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application Under R 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
Default judgment granted for the cross-claimant against the second cross-respondent.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'cross Claim' 'transfer of Real Property' 'unjust Enrichment' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'lump Sum Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'insolvency' 'restitution'] ['default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'cross Claim' 'transfer of Real Property' 'unjust Enrichment' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'lump Sum Costs']

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 on a Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application Under R 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second cross-respondent was in default within r 5.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the Court should grant default judgment under r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether, on the face of the cross-claim, the cross-claimant was entitled to judgment for $325,000 plus interest against the second cross-respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second cross-respondent was in default because it failed to file a defence, failed to appear, and was not defending the cross-claim with due diligence. On inspection of the cross-claim, the Court was satisfied that the cross-claimant was entitled to judgment for $325,000, with pre-judgment interest awarded under s 51A(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted for the cross-claimant against the second cross-respondent.

Orders

  • ['Judgment be given for the cross-claimant against the second cross-respondent in the sum of $325,000.00, together with pre-judgment interest thereon calculated from 17 January 2018 to 21 November 2019 in the sum of $32,591.27 pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'By 5 December 2019,...