BGC Contracting Pty Ltd v The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd

The parties to the proceeding were BGC Contracting Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff was entitled to have a default judgment set aside and an injunction discharged. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought to set aside a default judgment entered against it in a previous proceeding. The plaintiff contended that its solicitor had mistakenly placed the incorrect file number on its appearance, leading to the entry of the default judgment. The plaintiff argued that the default judgment should be set aside and the injunction discharged, as the mistake was not its fault.

The court was required to determine whether the appearance entered by the defendant's solicitor was effective and whether the appearance was entered with the incorrect file number. The court was also required to consider the construction of the termination deed and subsequent correspondence between the parties. The court had to determine whether the defendant's intention to plead that the judgment amounts were unreasonable, unnecessary and contrary to the parties' agreement was reasonable. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's admission was without prejudice and whether there was a defence on the merits.

The court found that the appearance entered by the defendant's solicitor was effective and that the incorrect file number did not render the appearance invalid. The court held that the termination deed and subsequent correspondence between the parties demonstrated that the defendant's intention to plead that the judgment amounts were unreasonable, unnecessary and contrary to the parties' agreement was unreasonable. The court found that the defendant's admission was without prejudice and that there was no defence on the merits. The court dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment and discharged the injunction.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and the injunction discharged. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient case for setting aside the default judgment or discharging the injunction. The court held that the plaintiff's delay in bringing the application was unreasonable and that the defendant would be prejudiced if the application was granted. The court also found that there was no defence on the merits and that the plaintiff's application should be dismissed.