Bank of Western Australia Limited v Coppola

In the case of Bank of Western Australia Limited v Coppola, the plaintiff sought possession of land due to mortgage default by the defendants. The litigation was marked by numerous breaches of court orders by the defendants, leading to protracted proceedings. The plaintiff applied for possession, and the defendants filed a defence. Despite a consent judgment being entered, the defendants continued to breach court orders, prompting the plaintiff to seek a default order of possession. The defendants then sought to set aside the consent judgment and to rely on material served out of time, citing their repeated breaches of court orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether one of the defendants should be granted leave to set aside the consent judgment and whether the defendants should be permitted to rely on material served out of time, given their history of breaching court orders. The court needed to consider the conduct of the defendants and the principles governing the setting aside of consent judgments and the admission of late material in such a context.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was vexatious and oppressive, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the setting aside of the consent judgment. Additionally, the defendants' repeated breaches of court orders meant they were not entitled to rely on material served out of time. The court held that allowing such conduct would undermine the integrity of the judicial process and that the defendants' actions warranted sanctions. Consequently, the court refused the defendants' applications.

The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the vexatious nature of their litigation conduct. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences for parties who engage in repeated breaches of judicial directions.