Attorney-General (SA) v Marmanidis

The appeal concerned a default judgment entered in the Magistrates Court of South Australia. The appellant, the Attorney-General (SA) on behalf of Mr Germein, sought to uphold a default judgment obtained against the respondent, Helen Marmanidis. The dispute arose from a minor civil claim filed by Mr Germein, represented by solicitors BDK, seeking damages for negligence after a motor vehicle collision. The claim included amounts for repairs and a hire car.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the default judgment was irregularly entered and, if so, what relief should be granted. Specifically, the court had to determine if Mr Germein's claim constituted a liquidated sum for which default judgment could be entered without an assessment of damages, or if it was an unliquidated claim requiring such an assessment. The court also considered the adequacy of the evidence served with the claim, particularly concerning the hire car costs.

The court reasoned that a claim for damages in negligence is a quintessential unliquidated claim, as the amount requires assessment by the court and cannot be predetermined by a fixed amount, scale, or formula. It distinguished between liquidated and unliquidated claims, noting that while default judgment can be entered for a liquidated sum, unliquidated claims typically necessitate an assessment of damages. The court found the contention that Mr Germein's claim was liquidated to be untenable, as no evidence of the hire car cost was served with the claim, and the claim for damages itself was not a liquidated sum. The court held that the construction of the relevant rules advanced by the Attorney-General and Mr Germein would undermine the established distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims.

The appeal was allowed, and the order quashing the default judgment was set aside. In its place, the court ordered that the default judgment be set aside on terms relating to the costs thrown away.