Burtenshaw Super Pty Ltd v De Castro

The case of Burtenshaw Super Pty Ltd v De Castro involved a dispute between the parties regarding the terms and conditions of an advance agreement and subsequent interest calculations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff sought to enforce a default judgment against the defendant. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant's application to set aside the default judgment should be successful and, if not, whether the interest calculation errors in the judgment warranted an amendment to the judgment by default. The court also considered whether the defendant's prospective defence of unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law or ASIC Act constituted a prima facie defence on the merits.

The court examined the defendant's application to set aside the default judgment and determined whether a prima facie defence on the merits existed. The defendant's counsel suggested the possibility of other defences under the Australian Consumer Law, but the court found these defences to be unsustainable due to the lack of evidence. The court then addressed the defendant's argument that the interest calculation error in the default judgment warranted setting aside or amending the judgment by default. The court found that the error related to the calculation of interest as compounding instead of simple interest and that the Advance Agreement was arguably unclear on this point. However, the court dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment, finding that the defendant had failed to establish a prima facie defence on the merits. The court, however, considered it appropriate to amend the judgment by default to reflect the correct interest calculation as simple rather than compounding.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the default judgment. However, it granted the defendant's application to amend the judgment by default to correct the interest calculation errors. The court ordered that the plaintiff's calculation of the judgment sum, as set out in paragraph 7 of the affidavit of Burtenshaw Super's solicitor, be adopted. The court also directed the parties to provide draft orders reflecting the amounts they contended should have been ordered according to their calculations applying simple interest. The court admitted and marked the parties' emails and annexures as exhibits in the application.

The court's final orders were as follows: (1) The plaintiff's barrister's email and annexures of 16 December 2022 were admitted and marked as exhibit 1 in the application. (2) The defendant's solicitor's email and annexure of 19 December 2022 were admitted and marked as exhibit 2 in the application. (3) The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed. (4) Order 1 of the default judgment of 16 September 2022 was amended to correct the interest calculation errors. (5) Order 2 of the default judgment of 16 September 2022 was amended to correct the interest calculation errors. (6) The court would hear the parties on costs if costs were not agreed in the meantime, at 9.15 am on 26 April 2023.