Sinopec International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wenwu Su [2019] NSWSC 269

Sinopec International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wenwu Su [2019] NSWSC 269

The Court entered judgment because the defendant failed to comply with directions to file and serve a Commercial List Response and did not appear, and s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) empowered the Court to give judgment notwithstanding that Pt 16 of the UCPR did not strictly apply to proceedings commenced by summons. Judgment was limited to $A9,980,425 because that was the amount claimed in the motion. The costs were not fixed by cl 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) because the proceedings were a contested matter: the defendant's conduct, including seeking mediation, consenting to directions for a Commercial List Response, seeking an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List Proceeding to Enforce a Settlement Deed by Application for Default Judgment / Motion for Judgment and Costs After Defendant Failed to File a Commercial List Response and Did Not Appear
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $A9,980,425 plus costs on the ordinary basis, with a notation that costs are not fixed by cl 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'contested Matter' 'fixed Costs' 'commercial List Proceedings' 'settlement Deed Enforcement']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'statutory Construction' 'commercial Law'] ['default Judgment' 'contested Matter' 'fixed Costs' 'commercial List Proceedings' 'settlement Deed Enforcement']

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

Equity Commercial List Proceeding to Enforce a Settlement Deed by Application for Default Judgment / Motion for Judgment and Costs After Defendant Failed to File a Commercial List Response and Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should enter judgment for the plaintiff where the defendant failed to file a Commercial List Response in proceedings commenced by summons.' 'Whether the plaintiff was obtaining judgment in a "contested matter" within cl 24(5) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW), so that costs were not fixed by the Regulation.' 'Whether judgment should be limited to the amount claimed in the motion rather than the higher updated debt figure proved at the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court entered judgment because the defendant failed to comply with directions to file and serve a Commercial List Response and did not appear, and s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) empowered the Court to give judgment notwithstanding that Pt 16 of the UCPR did not strictly apply to proceedings commenced by summons. Judgment was limited to $A9,980,425 because that was the amount claimed in the motion. The costs were not fixed by cl 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) because the proceedings were a contested matter: the defendant's conduct, including seeking mediation, consenting to directions for a Commercial List Response, seeking an...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $A9,980,425 plus costs on the ordinary basis, with a notation that costs are not fixed by cl 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff for $A9,980,425.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis." 'The judgment is to bear a notation that the costs are not fixed by cl 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW).']