Lee v Lonestar International Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1688

Lee v Lonestar International Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1688

The defendants did not appear at the hearing, and the second plaintiff's affidavit evidence was sufficient to establish the quantum required by UCPR r 29.7(3)(a) and (b), including the amount due and the credited payment. There was no reason to depart from the general rule as to costs, so judgment and costs were ordered for the second plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Liquidated Claim / Hearing in Absence of Defendants; Application for Judgment Under UCPR R 29.7(3)
Outcome
Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first and second defendants, with costs.
Legal Topics
['judgment in Absence of Party' 'no Appearance by Defendant' 'liquidated Claim' 'ucpr R 29.7' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['judgment in Absence of Party' 'no Appearance by Defendant' 'liquidated Claim' 'ucpr R 29.7' '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

Civil Procedure; Liquidated Claim / Hearing in Absence of Defendants; Application for Judgment Under UCPR R 29.7(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in relation to a liquidated claim, the Court should give judgment against defendants who did not appear at the hearing under UCPR r 29.7(3).' 'Whether the evidence established the amount due and any payments or credits in reduction of the claim.' "Whether the defendants should pay the second plaintiff's costs under UCPR r 42.1."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not appear at the hearing, and the second plaintiff's affidavit evidence was sufficient to establish the quantum required by UCPR r 29.7(3)(a) and (b), including the amount due and the credited payment. There was no reason to depart from the general rule as to costs, so judgment and costs were ordered for the second plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first and second defendants, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment in favour of the second plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $2,383,860.16.' 'Judgment in favour of the second plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $5,008,860.16.' "Order the defendants to pay the second plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]