Bruder Expedition Pty Ltd v Coles

Bruder Expedition Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, filed an action against Coles, the defendant, in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of contract. The defendant failed to respond to the proceedings, leading to the plaintiff entering a default judgment. Coles subsequently applied to set aside the default judgment, arguing it was irregularly entered.

The court needed to decide whether the default judgment was irregularly entered and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to set it aside. The court considered the factors relevant to such applications, including the defendant's prospects of successfully defending the action, the degree of fault in failing to defend, and any prejudice to the plaintiff if the judgment was set aside. The court also considered whether the defendant had a bona fide defence and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to defend.

The court found that the default judgment was irregularly entered as the defendant had not been properly served with the originating application, and this non-compliance was not trivial. The court also found that the defendant had a bona fide defence and a reasonable explanation for the failure to defend. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment. The court ordered that the default judgment be set aside, granted the defendant leave to file a Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the application.