ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Williamson

ANZ Banking Group Ltd filed an action against Williamson seeking a declaration of unpaid principal and interest on a loan, as well as interest and costs. Default judgment was obtained in March 2016. A warrant of possession was issued in February 2019. Williamson subsequently filed an application to set aside the default judgment. The court had to decide whether there was good reason to grant a stay of execution of the judgment, whether there was merit in the application to set aside the judgment, whether there was an arguable defence, and whether there was unreasonable delay in making the application.

The court considered the applicable legal principles and authorities. It noted that a stay of execution of judgment may be granted if there is good reason, and that the applicant must demonstrate that there is merit in the application to set aside the judgment, an arguable defence, and no unreasonable delay. The court considered the relevant authorities, including Evans v Bartlam, Grimshaw v Dunbar, Rosing v Ben Shemesh, Jaskovitz v Bonnick, Kleinsman v Capri, and ANZ Banking Group v ASIC & Ors. The court concluded that there was no good reason to grant a stay of execution of the judgment. The applicant had not demonstrated that there was merit in the application to set aside the judgment, an arguable defence, or that the delay was not unreasonable.

The court also considered the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r. 66.16 and found that the application was not made within a reasonable time. The court noted that the applicant had been aware of the default judgment since March 2016, but had not made the application until February 2019. The court found that the delay was unreasonable and that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment and the application for a stay of execution of the judgment.

The court made orders for costs of the application to set aside the default judgment and the application for a stay of execution of the judgment. The orders provided that the costs were to be paid by the applicant on an indemnity basis, and that the costs were to be taxed if not agreed. The court also made orders for costs of the proceeding in the Supreme Court, which were to be paid by the applicant on an indemnity basis. The orders provided that the costs were to be taxed if not agreed.