Eddaglide Pty Ltd v Taubert [2000] NSWSC 1123

Eddaglide Pty Ltd v Taubert [2000] NSWSC 1123

The application to set aside the judgments was refused because the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their default and delay. The evidence adduced, even after considerable time, was inadequate to demonstrate any strong defence on the merits (particularly for the second defendant). The undertaking by the plaintiffs not to rely on the judgments to defeat claims relating to consultancy fees and certain expenses was sufficient protection, so there was no need to set aside the judgments. The Mareva injunction was not varied as the court accepted the broader interpretation of the order regarding legal expenses, and the defendants in any event had sought a full...

Parties
Plaintiff: Eddaglide Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Gundagai Gold Pty Limited; First Defendant: Sigmund Taubert; Second Defendant: Taubert Technologies Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Pamela Ann Taubert
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings by Liquidators / Post Judgment Applications to Set Aside and Vary Orders
Outcome
Applications to set aside judgments and to discharge or vary Mareva injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judgments and Orders, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Mareva Injunction, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Estoppel
Procedure Equity Bankruptcy Judgments and Orders Setting Aside Default Judgment Mareva Injunction Bankruptcy Proceedings Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eddaglide Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Gundagai Gold Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Sigmund Taubert

First Defendant

Taubert Technologies Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Pamela Ann Taubert

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings by Liquidators / Post Judgment Applications to Set Aside and Vary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgments entered ex parte should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether there is a satisfactory explanation for default and delay
  3. 3 Whether there is evidence of a defence on the merits justifying setting aside judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the judgments was refused because the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their default and delay. The evidence adduced, even after considerable time, was inadequate to demonstrate any strong defence on the merits (particularly for the second defendant). The undertaking by the plaintiffs not to rely on the judgments to defeat claims relating to consultancy fees and certain expenses was sufficient protection, so there was no need to set aside the judgments. The Mareva injunction was not varied as the court accepted the broader interpretation of the order regarding legal expenses, and the defendants in any event had sought a full...

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside judgments and to discharge or vary Mareva injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to set aside judgment dismissed.
  • Application to discharge or vary Mareva injunction dismissed.