Cafarella v Decklite Australia Pty Ltd - [2024] QDC 177

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cafarella v Decklite Australia Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 177

PARTIES:

BOB BARTOLO CAFARELLA

(plaintiff/respondent)

v

DECKLITE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(ACN 162 584 330)

(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO:

D15/2024

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore Registry

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2024 (reserved to be determined on the papers subject to the further submissions of the defendant, filed 24 September 2024)

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

(a) The default judgement entered against the defendant on 11 April 2024 and any enforcement of it, be set aside.

(b) The defendant is to file a Notice of Intention to Defend the Claim filed on 13 February 2024, on or before 15 November 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application – Default judgment – Whether it is appropriate to set aside the default judgement given on 11 April 2024 against the defendant company pursuant to UCPR r 290 – Where the default judgment was irregularly entered

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 283, 290

CASES:

Browning v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2014] QCA 43

Cook v DA Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 52

Cusack v De Angelis [2008] 1 Qd R 344

Introduction

The issue in this matter is as to whether it is appropriate to set aside the judgment given on 11 April 2024 against the defendant company, in terms that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $610,807.33 (including $174,516.38 interest and $2,572.45 costs). That judgment was given in default of the filing of any defence to the claim filed by the plaintiff on 13 February 2024, for “$436,290.95 for monies due and owing pursuant to an agreement”.
These are the reasons for allowance of the application filed by the plaintiff on 30 May 2024, seeking that the default judgment be set aside pursuant to r 290 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”).
Discussion
Although it is the defendant’s position that a reason for the failure to file a defence is that the claim did not come to the attention of the guiding mind of the defendant (its directors, David William and Gabrielle Elizabeth Heaney), despite the evidence of the posting of the Claim and Statement of Claim to the registered office of the company; [1] such being sufficient for service pursuant to UCPR 107 and s 109X of the Corporations Act 2001, that is only explained in terms of some difficulty in respect of the emails sent to the company secretary (Gabrielle Elizabeth Heaney) in advice of this service, remaining unread as being directed to a junk mailbox.[2]
[1]Affidavit of PH Cooke filed 03/04/2024, [5]-[6].
[2]It is to be noted that this application has been pursued by the defendant through its directors acting without legal assistance.
In the absence of ability to demonstrate any irregularity in the obtaining of the judgment, the defendant’s application is for an exercise of discretion by the court pursuant to UCPR 290.[3] It is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cafarella v Decklite Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Cafarella v Decklite Australia Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 177
Case: [2024] QDC 177
Decision Date: 17 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Cafarella v Decklite Australia Pty Ltd concerned a default judgment entered against Decklite Australia Pty Ltd on 11 April 2024. The plaintiff, Cafarella, sought to enforce a default judgment that had been granted due to Decklite's failure to respond to the claim. Decklite applied to set aside the default judgment on the grounds that it was irregularly entered. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to set aside the default judgment and, if so, whether an extension of time should be granted for Decklite to file its defence.

The court considered the nature of the default judgment and the reasons for Decklite's failure to respond. The Statement of Claim did not specify a period for the calculation of interest or the basis upon which it was to be calculated, which was a critical aspect of the claim. Decklite argued that the irregularity in the entry of the default judgment warranted its setting aside. The court found that the material presented indicated that the default judgment was indeed irregular and thus warranted setting aside. However, the court noted that Decklite would still need to address the claim and the Statement of Claim.

Consequently, the court ordered that the default judgment be set aside, and enforcement of the judgment was halted. Decklite was granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Intention to Defend, which had to be submitted by 15 November 2024. The court did not make any order regarding the costs of the application. Therefore, the final orders were that the default judgment entered against Decklite on 11 April 2024 and any enforcement of it be set aside, and that Decklite file a Notice of Intention to Defend on or before 15 November 2024.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) The default judgement entered against the defendant on 11 April 2024 and any enforcement of it, be set aside.

(b) The defendant is to file a Notice of Intention to Defend the Claim filed on 13 February 2024, on or before 15 November 2024.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

However, the Statement of Claim does not specify any such period or indeed any basis upon which the interest claimed, at the rate of 20% per annum in accordance with the initial written agreement, was to be calculated. Relevantly, the Statement of Claim pleaded only that:“9. To the extent he is able, the Plaintiff says that:-(a)The term with respect to time being of the essence was either deleted or varied in some other way of which the Plaintiff is not aware;(b)The date for final repayment was extended to a date of which he is not precisely aware but, at least, to a date which was reasonable in the circumstances and which date has expired.…11. In the premises, the Defendant owes the Plaintiff the sum of $436,290.95 plus interest.12. Interest is running and continues to run on the amount outstanding pursuant to the Agreement at the rate of 20% per annum which is to be calculated daily, as to which see Terms 6 and 7 of the Agreement.”Conclusion Therefore, the appropriate determination is that the material which has been placed before the Court warrants the conclusion that the defendant is entitled to an order setting aside the default judgement. But the defendant will still need to address the Claim and Statement of Claim which remains. That will necessitate an ancillary order effectively extending the time period allowed, pursuant to UCPR 157, for the filing of a defence, which will necessitate relevant compliance with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the UCPR and particularly rules 149, 150 and 165 to 168. There will be no order as to the costs of this application. Accordingly, the orders are that:(a)The default judgement entered against the defendant on 11 April 2024 and any enforcement of it, be set aside. (b)The defendant is to file a Notice of Intention to Defend the claim filed on 13 February 2024, on or before 15 November 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Cafarella v Decklite Australia Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 177
PARTIES:	BOB BARTOLO CAFARELLA (plaintiff/respondent) v DECKLITE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 162 584 330) (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO:	D15/2024
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore Registry
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	16 August 2024 (reserved to be determined on the papers subject to the further submissions of the defendant, filed 24 September 2024)
JUDGE:	Long SC, DCJ
ORDER:	(a) The default judgement entered against the defendant on 11 April 2024 and any enforcement of it, be set aside. (b) The defendant is to file a Notice of Intention to Defend the Claim filed on 13 February 2024, on or before 15 November 2024.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application – Default judgment – Whether it is appropriate to set aside the default judgement given on 11 April 2024 against the defendant company pursuant to UCPR r 290 – Where the default judgment was irregularly entered
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 283, 290
CASES:	Browning v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2014] QCA 43 Cook v DA Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 52 Cusack v De Angelis [2008] 1 Qd R 344