Bettaway Financial Group Pty Ltd v Massaria

The matter of Bettaway Financial Group Pty Ltd v Massaria was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bettaway Financial Group sought judgment against the Massaria defendants for breach of contract and other related claims. The defendants did not appear at the hearing of the interlocutory application, and judgment was entered in default of appearance. The defendants subsequently sought to set aside the default judgment and to have the matter relisted for hearing on its merits. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendants' absence at the hearing was sufficiently explained, given that their solicitor had failed to file a notice of ceasing to act or a notice of change of address for service. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the defendants had an arguable defence available to them.

The court found that the defendants' absence was not sufficiently explained, as their solicitor had failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that the defendants were aware of the hearing. The court held that the defendants' solicitor had a duty to keep the defendants informed of all court proceedings and to ensure that they were represented at any hearing. The court further found that the defendants had an arguable defence available to them, as they had raised a number of preliminary objections to the claim which, if upheld, would have defeated the plaintiff's case. The court held that the defendants' failure to appear at the hearing was not justified, and that the default judgment should be set aside.

The court set aside the default judgment and ordered that the matter be relisted for hearing on its merits. The court further ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the application to set aside the default judgment. The court held that the defendants' solicitor's failure to take the necessary steps to ensure that the defendants were aware of the hearing was a serious breach of professional conduct, and that the defendants were not entitled to have their costs of the application to set aside the default judgment paid by the plaintiff.