Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Benedetta Russo and Sid Russo; Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Sid Russo

The applicants, Benedetta Russo and Sid Russo, sought to set aside default judgments obtained by the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited against them. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants argued that the default was due to an oversight and that there were triable issues which warranted setting aside the default judgments. The bank opposed the application, asserting that the applicants had failed to make out a case that there were triable issues, and that the application was not taken seriously.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had provided a sufficient explanation for their default, and if there were triable issues that would justify setting aside the default judgments. The court also considered whether there was a point of principle that warranted intervention to set aside the default judgments. The bank argued that the applicants had not demonstrated any triable issues and that the application was not taken seriously.

The court found that the applicants had provided a sufficient explanation for their default, as they had shown that it was due to an oversight. However, the court noted that the applicants had not made out any triable issues that would warrant setting aside the default judgments. The court also found that there was no point of principle that warranted intervention to set aside the default judgments. The court highlighted that the applicants had provided voluminous documentary material to the Court, but there was no reference in argument to the vast majority of that material. The application was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicants pay the bank's costs of the application. The court noted that the application was not taken seriously and that the applicants had not made out any triable issues. The court found that there was no point of principle that warranted intervention to set aside the default judgments.