Aust Investment Corp (Holdings) Ltd v Markway Holdings Pty Ltd

In the case of Aust Investment Corp (Holdings) Ltd v Markway Holdings Pty Ltd, the defendant sought an ex parte application to the Registrar for a default judgment against the plaintiff in relation to a counterclaim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant argued that, under the repealed Rules of the Supreme Court, default judgment could be granted by a Registrar, and thus, they were entitled to such a judgment in this instance. However, the plaintiff contended that no similar rule exists under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and therefore, the Registrar lacked the power to grant such a judgment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's application for a default judgment could be granted by a Registrar under the repealed Rules of the Supreme Court or if it should be determined under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court had to consider whether the Registrar had the power to grant a default judgment in the absence of an answer to a counterclaim, and if so, whether this was permissible under the current legal framework. The court also had to examine the power to review a decision of a Registrar in the context of granting default judgments.

The court determined that the defendant's application for a direction to the Registrar to give judgment against the plaintiff in default of filing an answer in response to the defendant’s counterclaim was refused. The court found that there was no similar rule under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules that would allow a Registrar to grant such a judgment. The court further held that the power to review a decision of a Registrar was limited and did not extend to the grant of a default judgment in this context. Consequently, the application for judgment pursuant to rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules was also refused. The court did, however, grant the defendant liberty to apply for leave to have the application determined by a Registrar on August 12, 2002, reheard by the court constituted by a judge and for any other necessary ancillary orders. The court made no order as to costs.