Hume Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Yi Hao Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 183

Hume Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Yi Hao Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 183

The second defendant was sufficiently notified of the hearing but did not appear. The evidence and pleadings established that he signed the Guarantee and guaranteed the first defendant's obligations. The first defendant defaulted under the credit account terms and $219,213.14 remained outstanding from 31 March 2020. Because the second defendant did not propound or support his pleaded defences and was bound by the Guarantee, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the principal sum, interest calculated under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100, and costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings for Enforcement of a Guarantee / Undefended Hearing Against the Second Defendant After Settlement or Discontinuance of Proceedings Involving the Other Defendants
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $219,213.14 plus interest of $17,741.67, with the second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['enforcement of Guarantee' 'default on Credit Account' 'undefended Hearing' 'notice of Hearing' 'interest Under Civil Procedure Act 2005, S 100' 'costs']
['guarantees and Suretyship' 'civil Procedure'] ['enforcement of Guarantee' 'default on Credit Account' 'undefended Hearing' 'notice of Hearing' 'interest Under Civil Procedure Act 2005, S 100' 'costs']

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

Equity Proceedings for Enforcement of a Guarantee / Undefended Hearing Against the Second Defendant After Settlement or Discontinuance of Proceedings Involving the Other Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant was sufficiently notified of the hearing and the plaintiff could proceed in his absence.' "Whether the second defendant signed and was bound by the Guarantee for the first defendant's financial obligations to the plaintiff." 'Whether the first defendant defaulted on amounts owing to the plaintiff and the amount recoverable from the second defendant as surety.' 'Whether interest should be awarded under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant was sufficiently notified of the hearing but did not appear. The evidence and pleadings established that he signed the Guarantee and guaranteed the first defendant's obligations. The first defendant defaulted under the credit account terms and $219,213.14 remained outstanding from 31 March 2020. Because the second defendant did not propound or support his pleaded defences and was bound by the Guarantee, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the principal sum, interest calculated under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100, and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $219,213.14 plus interest of $17,741.67, with the second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $219,213.14.' 'Judgment for interest against the Second Defendant calculated from 31 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 in accordance with s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 in the amount of $17,741.67.' "Order that the Second Defendant pay the...