Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Limited v Print Media & Publishing Group (Australia) Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 112

Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Limited v Print Media & Publishing Group (Australia) Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 112

The Court refused to set aside the default judgment because Mrs Nand gave no adequate explanation for failing to defend or for delaying the application: she had repeated notice of the proceedings, warnings of default judgment, knowledge that Raju could not properly protect her interests, and nevertheless chose to rely on him and not participate in the Court process. The Court was also unpersuaded that she had a good or arguable defence on the merits, because the evidence showed only that she signed a document she did not read and did not establish that her failure to read and understand the guarantee was not due to her own carelessness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Notice of Motion Filed 26 August 2013 Dismissed After Hearing
Outcome
Notice of Motion to set aside default judgment dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'delay' 'arguable Defence on the Merits' 'guarantee' 'non Est Factum' 'contracts Review Act 1980' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'undue Influence' 'misrepresentation']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['setting Aside Default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'delay' 'arguable Defence on the Merits' 'guarantee' 'non Est Factum' 'contracts Review Act 1980' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'undue Influence' 'misrepresentation']

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 Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Notice of Motion Filed 26 August 2013 Dismissed After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third defendant provided an adequate explanation for failing to file a defence and for delay in seeking to set aside the default judgment.' "Whether the third defendant demonstrated a good or arguable defence on the merits to the plaintiff's claim under the guarantee." 'Whether the interests of justice required that the default judgment be set aside under Part 36, rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to set aside the default judgment because Mrs Nand gave no adequate explanation for failing to defend or for delaying the application: she had repeated notice of the proceedings, warnings of default judgment, knowledge that Raju could not properly protect her interests, and nevertheless chose to rely on him and not participate in the Court process. The Court was also unpersuaded that she had a good or arguable defence on the merits, because the evidence showed only that she signed a document she did not read and did not establish that her failure to read and understand the guarantee was not due to her own carelessness.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion to set aside default judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The third defendant's Notice of Motion filed 26 August 2013 to set aside the default judgment entered on 23 August 2012 was dismissed." "Mrs Nand was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs."]