Bank of Western Australia P/L v Doltar P/L

Bank of Western Australia P/L took proceedings against Doltar P/L in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking a default judgment for a debt owed. Doltar P/L did not respond to the proceedings, and a default judgment was subsequently entered. Doltar P/L applied to set aside the default judgment, but this application was dismissed. The court held that the application to set aside the default judgment required particularity, and Doltar P/L did not meet the required standard.

The legal issues before the court were whether the application to set aside the default judgment was particularised as required and whether the onus of proof was discharged by the applicant. The court found that the application was not sufficiently particularised as it did not contain specific details about the defence to the claim or any other relevant information. The court also held that the onus of proof was on the applicant to demonstrate that the default judgment should be set aside, and this onus was not discharged.

The court reasoned that the application to set aside a default judgment must be particularised, meaning that it must contain sufficient detail to inform the court of the nature of the defence and any other relevant information. The court held that the application in this case was not sufficiently particularised as it did not provide specific details about the defence to the claim or any other relevant information. The court also held that the onus of proof was on the applicant to demonstrate that the default judgment should be set aside, and this onus was not discharged as the application was not particularised as required.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment and ordered that the second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.