Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited v Colevski Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 607

Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited v Colevski Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 607

The motion was refused because the defendants brought a third stay application at the last minute, gave no valid explanation for the delay, filed no defence or draft defence, identified no recognisable ground of defence or cross-claim, relied on inadequate affidavit material containing untruths and obfuscations, and had already had ample opportunity since July 2023 to respond. Granting a stay or setting aside the default judgment would be inconsistent with ss 56 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application Concerning Default Judgment, Stay of Execution and Writ of Possession / Notice of Motion Filed 17 May 2024 Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
The notice of motion filed 17 May 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'writ of Possession' 'default Judgment' 'delay' 'adequacy of Affidavit Evidence' 'setting Aside Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'mortgage Enforcement'] ['stay of Execution' 'writ of Possession' 'default Judgment' 'delay' 'adequacy of Affidavit Evidence' 'setting Aside Judgment']

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

Civil Procedure Application Concerning Default Judgment, Stay of Execution and Writ of Possession / Notice of Motion Filed 17 May 2024 Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether default judgment entered on 21 July 2023 should be stayed or set aside.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be prohibited from taking further action to enforce the default judgment and writs of possession.' 'Whether the defendants provided an adequate explanation for the delay in bringing the application.' 'Whether the defendants identified any arguable defence or cross-claim supported by adequate evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was refused because the defendants brought a third stay application at the last minute, gave no valid explanation for the delay, filed no defence or draft defence, identified no recognisable ground of defence or cross-claim, relied on inadequate affidavit material containing untruths and obfuscations, and had already had ample opportunity since July 2023 to respond. Granting a stay or setting aside the default judgment would be inconsistent with ss 56 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The notice of motion filed 17 May 2024 is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 17 May 2024 is dismissed with costs.']