Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd v Ghosh (No. 2)

Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to enforce a judgment against Mr. Ghosh (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant had obtained a default judgment against the respondent in earlier proceedings. The respondent sought to set aside this default judgment, and the applicant sought to continue with enforcement proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the default judgment should be set aside. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the setting aside of default judgments, particularly in circumstances where a defendant claims to have a meritorious defence and has provided a reasonable explanation for their failure to file a defence within the prescribed time. The Court also had to consider the applicant's entitlement to continue with enforcement proceedings pending the determination of the application to set aside the judgment.

In determining whether to set aside the default judgment, the Court applied the well-established principles that a defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment must demonstrate both a meritorious defence and a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their defence. The Court found that the respondent had provided a sufficient explanation for his failure to file a defence, attributing it to a misunderstanding of the legal process and the complexity of the documents served. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the respondent had raised a defence with sufficient merit to warrant a trial. Consequently, the Court ordered that the default judgment be set aside, conditional upon the respondent filing and serving his defence within a specified period and paying the applicant's costs thrown away by the delay. The enforcement proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the substantive defence.