K.M. & A. Chadwick Pty Ltd v Yeung, E.T.M. & Ors [1995] FCA 62

K.M. & A. Chadwick Pty Ltd v Yeung, E.T.M. & Ors [1995] FCA 62

The respondents repeatedly failed to comply with the Court's discovery orders, failed to provide adequate further and better particulars, gave no acceptable explanation for those defaults, and did not appear on the motion despite notice. This history showed an inability or unwillingness to co-operate with the Court and the applicant in preparing the matter for trial within an acceptable period and caused repeated delay and expense. The consent orders of 16 December 1994 did not, on balance, preclude reliance on the defaults. It was therefore appropriate under Order 10, rule 7(2) to strike out the defence and enter judgment for the applicant for $81,583.48, with costs and with interest to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Claim for Breach of S.592(1) of the Corporations Law Against Company Directors / Applicant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Respondents' Defence and Enter Judgment for Default in Discovery and Non Compliance With Court Orders
Outcome
Defence struck out; judgment entered for the applicant for $81,583.48 subject to interest; respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs; interest issue stood over.
Legal Topics
['director Liability Under S.592(1) of the Corporations Law' 'discovery' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'strike Out of Defence' 'judgment on Default' 'further and Better Particulars']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['director Liability Under S.592(1) of the Corporations Law' 'discovery' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'strike Out of Defence' 'judgment on Default' 'further and Better Particulars']

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

Claim for Breach of S.592(1) of the Corporations Law Against Company Directors / Applicant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Respondents' Defence and Enter Judgment for Default in Discovery and Non Compliance With Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' repeated failure to provide discovery in accordance with court orders justified striking out their defence and entering judgment for the applicant." "Whether the respondents' failure to provide adequate further and better particulars and failure to appear reinforced the conclusion that they were unable or unwilling to prepare the matter for trial." 'Whether the consent orders made on 16 December 1994 should prevent the applicant from relying on earlier defaults.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents repeatedly failed to comply with the Court's discovery orders, failed to provide adequate further and better particulars, gave no acceptable explanation for those defaults, and did not appear on the motion despite notice. This history showed an inability or unwillingness to co-operate with the Court and the applicant in preparing the matter for trial within an acceptable period and caused repeated delay and expense. The consent orders of 16 December 1994 did not, on balance, preclude reliance on the defaults. It was therefore appropriate under Order 10, rule 7(2) to strike out the defence and enter judgment for the applicant for $81,583.48, with costs and with interest to...

Court Disposition

Defence struck out; judgment entered for the applicant for $81,583.48 subject to interest; respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs; interest issue stood over.

Orders

  • ['The defence filed by the respondents is struck out.' 'Judgment is entered for the applicant in the amount of $81,583.48, subject to the question of interest.' "The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs." "The applicant's written submissions on interest are to be filed with the Associate by 5 pm on 22...