Multi Modal Ltd v Polakow, N. [1987] FCA 633

Multi Modal Ltd v Polakow, N. [1987] FCA 633

The respondent was served with originating and motion process, failed for five months to file an appearance, and did not apply for adjournment or respond in substance. This constitutes 'default' under O.20 r.1(1)(c). Affidavit evidence, including some admissible hearsay under s.79C of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), established the applicant's entitlement to damages. The applicant is therefore entitled to judgment for the amount claimed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Heard on Notice of Motion for Default Judgment After Failure to File Appearance
Outcome
Default judgment for the applicant against the respondent
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'misrepresentation' 'breach of Contract' 'fraud' 'damages' 'admissibility of Hearsay Evidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law' 'trade Practices' 'evidence'] ['default Judgment' 'misrepresentation' 'breach of Contract' 'fraud' 'damages' 'admissibility of Hearsay Evidence']

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

Default Judgment Application / Heard on Notice of Motion for Default Judgment After Failure to File Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent is in default of appearance within the meaning of the Federal Court Rules' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to default judgment for damages arising from alleged contraventions of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, breach of contract, and fraud' 'Whether hearsay evidence may be admitted in support of the default judgment motion']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was served with originating and motion process, failed for five months to file an appearance, and did not apply for adjournment or respond in substance. This constitutes 'default' under O.20 r.1(1)(c). Affidavit evidence, including some admissible hearsay under s.79C of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), established the applicant's entitlement to damages. The applicant is therefore entitled to judgment for the amount claimed.

Court Disposition

Default judgment for the applicant against the respondent

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay to the applicant the sum of $206,590.51.' "The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the action." "Liberty to apply in relation to the applicant's name."]