Ferguson v Dallow (No 2) [2021] FCA 152

Ferguson v Dallow (No 2) [2021] FCA 152

The First Respondent was in default because he failed to file a defence by the deadline fixed by the Court. On the face of the Amended Statement of Claim, and having regard to the deemed admissions arising from that failure, the Applicant appeared entitled to the substantive relief sought. Given the elapsed time, the Court-ordered deadline, the First Respondent's prior legal representation, the absence of any extension application, and his stated non-opposition, it was appropriate to enter judgment by default.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment Pursuant to R 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) in Proceedings Claiming Injunctive Relief and Damages for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Defamation / Interlocutory Application Filed on 1 February 2021; Ex Tempore Reasons and Orders on 19 February 2021
Outcome
Application for default judgment granted against the First Respondent.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'deemed Admissions' 'permanent Injunction' 'damages to Be Assessed']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation' 'consumer Law'] ['default Judgment' 'failure to File Defence' 'deemed Admissions' 'permanent Injunction' 'damages to Be Assessed']

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

Application for Default Judgment Pursuant to R 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) in Proceedings Claiming Injunctive Relief and Damages for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Defamation / Interlocutory Application Filed on 1 February 2021; Ex Tempore Reasons and Orders on 19 February 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Respondent was in default within the meaning of r 5.22 of the Federal Court Rules (2011) (Cth) by failing to file a defence within the time ordered by the Court.' 'Whether default judgment should be entered under r 5.23(2) of the Federal Court Rules (2011) (Cth).' 'Whether the Applicant was entitled to a permanent injunction and damages to be assessed on the defamation causes of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Respondent was in default because he failed to file a defence by the deadline fixed by the Court. On the face of the Amended Statement of Claim, and having regard to the deemed admissions arising from that failure, the Applicant appeared entitled to the substantive relief sought. Given the elapsed time, the Court-ordered deadline, the First Respondent's prior legal representation, the absence of any extension application, and his stated non-opposition, it was appropriate to enter judgment by default.

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment granted against the First Respondent.

Orders

  • ['The First Respondent be restrained permanently from publishing, republishing, distributing, disseminating or making available for viewing the video entitled "Behind the Classroom Door" published on www.tasnews24.tv and www.youtube.com.' 'The First Respondent be restrained permanently from publishing, republishing,...