Resort Living Group Pty Ltd v Strategic Advisers Group LLC (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 983

Resort Living Group Pty Ltd v Strategic Advisers Group LLC (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 983

The first and second defendants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay, failed to comply with court orders, and did not establish a bona fide defence. Therefore, the application to set aside the default judgment fails both on regularity and discretionary grounds.

Parties
Plaintiff: Resort Living Group Pty Ltd (ACN 159 788 593); First Defendant: Strategic Advisers Group LLC; Second Defendant: Mr Sebastian Saviano
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Application to Strike Out Notice of Motion)
Outcome
Defendants' and plaintiff's notices of motion both dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Bona Fide Defence, Explanation for Delay, Irregularity, Damages Assessment
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Bona Fide Defence Explanation for Delay Irregularity Damages Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resort Living Group Pty Ltd (ACN 159 788 593)

Plaintiff

Strategic Advisers Group LLC

First Defendant

Mr Sebastian Saviano

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory (application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Application to Strike Out Notice of Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment should be set aside for irregularity under UCPR r 36.15 or in the exercise of the Court's discretion under r 36.16
  2. 2 Whether the defendants provided a satisfactory explanation for delay in seeking to set aside the default judgment
  3. 3 Whether there is a bona fide defence on the merits

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second defendants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay, failed to comply with court orders, and did not establish a bona fide defence. Therefore, the application to set aside the default judgment fails both on regularity and discretionary grounds.

Court Disposition

Defendants' and plaintiff's notices of motion both dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The first and second defendant's notice of motion filed 15 July 2022 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's notice of motion dated 12 August 2022 is dismissed.