7 Mar 2023
Leave to file a statement of defence out of time was declined because the defendant failed to provide any outline of a defence and any challenge to the arbitral award was time-barred, so the defendant did not establish sufficient grounds to extend time.
12 Feb 2021
Leave to file a statement of defence was granted because Wild Logic Properties demonstrated a potentially substantial defence (plausible trust/agency or resulting/constructive trust excluding PPSA application), the delay was partially explained and addressed promptly after liquidators became aware, and any prejudice to Heartland Bank was financial and remediable by costs rather than irreparable; accordingly interests of justice required granting leave subject to conditions and timetabled directions.
4 Nov 2016
Leave to file a statement of defence out of time was refused because the defendant is presumptively and in substance insolvent and therefore leave should not be granted to delay liquidation, and the defendant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; on the merits clause 10 is not an unenforceable penalty, the force majeure defence is arguable but not determinative, and the no-consideration argument is untenable.
10 Mar 2014
Leave to defend was granted despite the unexplained and inordinate delay because the defendant demonstrated a substantial and arguable defence and the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable injury if indemnified; the court therefore exercised its discretion to permit a belated defence on strict conditions including payment of specified costs and timetabling orders.
9 Dec 2010
The court found the defendant's alleged misrepresentations and waiver were either contractually excluded by the lease, contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, or not credibly established; Pearl failed to apply to set aside the statutory demand and provided no evidence of solvency, so the presumption of inability to pay stood and liquidation was ordered.
12 Nov 2009
Although grounds under High Court Rules r5.45(1)(b) existed because the plaintiff was in liquidation, the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs because the proceedings arise from transactions negotiated by the defendant's directors (who were also directors of the plaintiff), there was no evidence of external funders as in Cory-Wright, and ordering security risked preventing legitimate liquidation proceedings and denying creditors' interests.
13 Aug 2009
Because the respondent persisted with liquidation proceedings after the applicant legitimately signalled a genuine dispute, the respondent must pay the costs of the proceedings; an uplift was declined because the applicant's procedural non‑compliance did not materially increase the legal costs.
9 Jun 2008
The court held the plaintiff's claim for partition and sale was not a liquidated demand under r 460 so notice under r 465 was required and no dispensing order had been made; therefore the final judgment was irregularly obtained and the defendant is prima facie entitled to have it set aside or varied, but the court will not grant variation until the defendant provides an explanation for non‑filing, a draft defence and supporting evidence so the court can determine whether leave to defend should be granted; application adjourned with directions and costs reserved.
23 May 2006
Leave to file a statement of defence out of time was refused and the application for security for costs was declined because the defendant provided no acceptable explanation for delay, produced inadequate evidence of solvency, and had persistently breached timetable directions; discovery and interrogatories were adjourned as premature and costs were awarded against the defendant.