EDDAGLIDE PTY. LTD. & ANOR. V. TAUBERT & ORS [2000] NSWSC 1226

EDDAGLIDE PTY. LTD. & ANOR. V. TAUBERT & ORS [2000] NSWSC 1226

The same ordinary rule of practice limiting repeated interlocutory applications applies to a second application to set aside default judgments. Because the defendants showed no relevant change of circumstances, no fresh material that could not have been put before Hamilton J, and no sufficiently powerful interests of justice, the second notice of motion should be dismissed. Any alleged error in Hamilton J's judgment should ordinarily be addressed by an application for leave to appeal rather than by approaching another primary judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Default Judgments / Second Application After a Similar Application Was Dismissed by Hamilton J on 22 November 2000
Outcome
The defendant's Notice of Motion filed 27 November 2000 was dismissed; the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of that Notice of Motion; the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 8 December 2000 was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Applications' 'repeated Applications' 'applications to Set Aside Default Judgments' 'companies in Liquidation' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['interlocutory Applications' 'repeated Applications' 'applications to Set Aside Default Judgments' 'companies in Liquidation' '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

Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Default Judgments / Second Application After a Similar Application Was Dismissed by Hamilton J on 22 November 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the rule of practice limiting repeated interlocutory applications applies to a second application to set aside default judgments.' 'Whether a material change of circumstances, fresh material, or powerful considerations of justice justified entertaining the second application.' 'Whether leave should be given in Court to file a notice of motion seeking leave to bring a statement of claim against plaintiff companies in liquidation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The same ordinary rule of practice limiting repeated interlocutory applications applies to a second application to set aside default judgments. Because the defendants showed no relevant change of circumstances, no fresh material that could not have been put before Hamilton J, and no sufficiently powerful interests of justice, the second notice of motion should be dismissed. Any alleged error in Hamilton J's judgment should ordinarily be addressed by an application for leave to appeal rather than by approaching another primary judge.

Court Disposition

The defendant's Notice of Motion filed 27 November 2000 was dismissed; the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of that Notice of Motion; the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 8 December 2000 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["I dismiss the defendant's Notice of Motion filed 27 November 2000." "I order that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion." "I dismiss the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 8 December 2000." 'No order as to costs of that Notice of Motion.']