GCTR Investments Pty Ltd v DJD Family Holdings [2023] FCA 260

GCTR Investments Pty Ltd v DJD Family Holdings [2023] FCA 260

The applicant is entitled to default judgment because the respondents were in default of Court orders, failed to defend or attend, and the facts alleged entitle the applicant to the relief sought under both contract and Australian Consumer Law, with the claim for debt within r 5.23(2)(b) and the misleading conduct claim under r 5.23(2)(c).

Parties
Applicant: GCTR Investments Pty Ltd; First Respondent: DJD Family Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Daniel John Dean
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract and Consumer Law Claim / Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against the respondents by default.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Breach of Contract, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Damages
Civil Procedure Contract Law Consumer Law Default Judgment Breach of Contract Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Damages

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GCTR Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant

DJD Family Holdings Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Daniel John Dean

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract and Consumer Law Claim / Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against the respondents under r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to recover the principal, interest and costs from the respondents under contract and/or under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law due to misleading or deceptive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is entitled to default judgment because the respondents were in default of Court orders, failed to defend or attend, and the facts alleged entitle the applicant to the relief sought under both contract and Australian Consumer Law, with the claim for debt within r 5.23(2)(b) and the misleading conduct claim under r 5.23(2)(c).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against the respondents by default.

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of applicant against respondents for $333,671.23 by default.
  • Respondents to pay applicant's costs in lump sum of $19,489.08.