Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Jones

Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd brought an action against Jones seeking compensation for damages to poultry and eggs. Jones denied the allegations and filed a defence. Baiada Poultry then applied to have Jones's defence struck out, arguing that Jones had failed to conduct their defence with due despatch. The court had to determine whether the delay in filing the defence was sufficient to warrant the exercise of its discretion to strike it out under UCPR rule 12.7(2).

The court noted that the delay in filing the defence was significant, and that Jones had provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court considered the factors set out in UCPR rule 12.7(2) and concluded that the delay had caused prejudice to Baiada Poultry. The court also considered the principle that parties should conduct their litigation with due despatch and that the court has a duty to ensure that the administration of justice is not impeded. The court found that the delay in filing the defence was sufficient to warrant the exercise of its discretion to strike it out.

The court exercised its discretion to strike out Jones's defence in accordance with UCPR rule 12.7(2). The court noted that this was a serious matter and that the consequences of striking out a defence are significant. However, the court found that the delay in filing the defence was unjustified and that the prejudice caused to Baiada Poultry outweighed any prejudice to Jones. The court ordered that Jones's defence be struck out and that the matter proceed to trial on Baiada Poultry's claim.