Andre Lakomy as Liquidator for Energylink Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Charles Maxwell [2021] NSWSC 465
The application to set aside judgment was dismissed because Energylink acted regularly, Maxwell consciously elected not to defend with knowledge of proceedings, and failed to provide a credible explanation for delay.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Andre Lakomy as Liquidator for Energylink Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liquidation); Defendant: Charles Maxwell
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial / Application to Set Aside Judgment
- Outcome
- Motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Discretion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 36.16(2)(b), Delay and Explanation for Absence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andre Lakomy as Liquidator for Energylink Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
Plaintiff
Charles Maxwell
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Application to Set Aside Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Should judgment entered in absence of the defendant be set aside under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.16(2)(b)?
- 2 Did the defendant provide an adequate explanation for his absence and delay?
- 3 Was the plaintiff's conduct proper in obtaining judgment?
Ratio Decidendi
The application to set aside judgment was dismissed because Energylink acted regularly, Maxwell consciously elected not to defend with knowledge of proceedings, and failed to provide a credible explanation for delay.
Court Disposition
Motion dismissed
Orders
- Motion dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment