Spice Chest Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2019] FCA 1268

Spice Chest Pty Ltd v MacDonald [2019] FCA 1268

Spice Chest was entitled to seek default judgment because both respondents were in default, but it was not entitled to judgment against Mr MacDonald because the pleaded guarantee claim was not made out and the pleaded facts did not support contraventions of s 12DA of the ASIC Act. VPG had been unjustly enriched by receiving and applying Spice Chest's funds for a purpose to which Spice Chest had not consented, causing a failure of consideration, so default judgment was entered against VPG for $1,130,067.00.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment / Interlocutory Application Filed 2 May 2019 for Default Judgment
Outcome
Default judgment entered against the second respondent, Vision Project Group Pty Ltd, for $1,130,067.00; application otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (cth) S 12 Da' 'unjust Enrichment' 'failure of Consideration' 'money Had and Received' 'service' 'federal Court Rules 2011']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'restitution'] ['default Judgment' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (cth) S 12 Da' 'unjust Enrichment' 'failure of Consideration' 'money Had and Received' 'service' 'federal Court Rules 2011']

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 / Interlocutory Application Filed 2 May 2019 for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents were in default so as to enliven an application for default judgment under the Federal Court Rules 2011.' 'Whether Spice Chest was entitled to default judgment against Mr MacDonald based on an alleged guarantee or damages under s 12GF of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether the pleaded facts supported contraventions of s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether Spice Chest was entitled to default judgment against Vision Project Group Pty Ltd for unjust enrichment where funds advanced for developments by other companies were received and applied by VPG.']

Ratio Decidendi

Spice Chest was entitled to seek default judgment because both respondents were in default, but it was not entitled to judgment against Mr MacDonald because the pleaded guarantee claim was not made out and the pleaded facts did not support contraventions of s 12DA of the ASIC Act. VPG had been unjustly enriched by receiving and applying Spice Chest's funds for a purpose to which Spice Chest had not consented, causing a failure of consideration, so default judgment was entered against VPG for $1,130,067.00.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered against the second respondent, Vision Project Group Pty Ltd, for $1,130,067.00; application otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Default judgment be given against the second respondent in the sum of $1,130,067.00.' "The second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application for default judgment against the second respondent." 'Otherwise, the interlocutory application filed 2 May 2019 be dismissed.' "Liberty be granted to the...