French Consulting Pty Limited v Lawson Stuart Donald [2011] NSWSC 584

French Consulting Pty Limited v Lawson Stuart Donald [2011] NSWSC 584

The Court refused to proceed ex parte with the assessment of damages because the Plaintiff had not established that the first Defendant knew of, or had reasonable notice of, the 16 June 2011 trial date or that the affidavits and correspondence to be relied upon had been brought to his attention. The evidence did not prove personal service or service by post, and absent proof of notice the Court was not satisfied that UCPR rule 29.7 could properly be invoked.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Assessment of Damages After Judgment on Liability Against the First Defendant / Trial for Assessment of Damages; Whether to Proceed in the First Defendant's Absence Under UCPR Rule 29.7
Outcome
The assessment of damages was not heard ex parte and the matter was adjourned to the Registrar's List.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment on Liability' 'assessment of Damages' 'absence of Party at Trial' 'notice of Trial Date' 'service by Post']
['civil Procedure' 'natural Justice' 'damages'] ['default Judgment on Liability' 'assessment of Damages' 'absence of Party at Trial' 'notice of Trial Date' 'service by Post']

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 Proceedings for Assessment of Damages After Judgment on Liability Against the First Defendant / Trial for Assessment of Damages; Whether to Proceed in the First Defendant's Absence Under UCPR Rule 29.7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was appropriate to proceed to hear the assessment of damages in the absence of the first Defendant under UCPR rule 29.7.' 'Whether the Plaintiff had established that the first Defendant had notice or knowledge of the assessment of damages trial date.' 'Whether service of correspondence and affidavit evidence on the first Defendant had been proved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to proceed ex parte with the assessment of damages because the Plaintiff had not established that the first Defendant knew of, or had reasonable notice of, the 16 June 2011 trial date or that the affidavits and correspondence to be relied upon had been brought to his attention. The evidence did not prove personal service or service by post, and absent proof of notice the Court was not satisfied that UCPR rule 29.7 could properly be invoked.

Court Disposition

The assessment of damages was not heard ex parte and the matter was adjourned to the Registrar's List.

Orders

  • ['It is not appropriate to proceed to hear the assessment of damages ex parte.' "At the request of the Plaintiff, adjourn the matter to the Registrar's List on Wednesday, 7 December 2011." "Make no order as to the Plaintiff's costs of today, to the intent that it will bear its own costs."]