SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Cook v D A Manufacturing Co P/L & Anor [2004] QCA 52
PARTIES:
GRAHAM CLIFFORD COOK
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
D A MANUFACTURING CO PTY LTD
ACN 010 219 717
(first defendant/appellant)
WES MACKNEY
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 8106 of 2003
Appeal No 8844 of 2003
SC No 10226 of 1998DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
5 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18 February 2004
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ and McPherson and Williams JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. In Appeal No 8106 of 2003 – appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
2. In Appeal No 8844 of 2003:
(i)Appeal allowed
(ii)The order appealed from is varied to the extent only of setting aside that part thereof which ordered that the application be dismissed
(iii) The default judgment dated 6 July 2000 is to be set aside and the appellant given unconditional leave to defend
(iv) The appellant is to file and serve a defence in the proceeding within 28 days of this order
(v)The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE – where respondent obtained judgment against appellant in default of pleading – where appellant not made aware of default judgment until three years later – where respondent granted leave to proceed after three year period – where appellant’s application to have default judgment set aside was refused – whether the granting of leave to proceed should have been made conditional on the default judgment being set aside
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 290, r 389
Aboyne Pty Ltd v Dixon Homes Pty Ltd [1980] Qd R 142, referred to
Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473, followed
National Australia Bank Ltd v Singh [1995] 1 Qd R 377; [1993] QCA 469; Appeal No 97 of 1993, 22 October 1993, cited
National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Oasis Developments Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 441, followed
Taylor v Taylor (1978) 143 CLR 1, cited
W R Carpenter Australia Ltd v Ogle [1999] 2 Qd R 327; [1997] QCA 383; Appeal No 5023 of 1996, 28 October 1997, citedCOUNSEL:
K A Barlow for the appellant
R J Clutterbuck for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Gadens Lawyers for the appellant
Schultz Toomey O’Brien for the respondent
de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Williams JA. I agree with the orders proposed by Williams JA, and with his reasons.
McPHERSON JA: I have read and agree with the reasons of Williams JA. In my opinion, the orders, including those relating to costs, should be those proposed in his Honour’s judgment on this appeal.
WILLIAMS JA: The court is concerned with…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cook v D A Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] QCA 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court found that the District Court did not have the inherent jurisdiction to grant leave to proceed after such a significant delay without first setting aside the default judgment. The Court held that the granting of leave to proceed should have been conditional on the setting aside of the default judgment. The Court also noted that the appellant had a strong case for having the default judgment set aside, given the circumstances of his unawareness of the judgment until three years later. The Court concluded that the District Court's refusal to set aside the default judgment and grant leave to defend was an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the order was varied to set aside the default judgment and grant the appellant unconditional leave to defend. The appellant was also ordered to file and serve a defence within 28 days of the order, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In Appeal No 8106 of 2003 – appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
2. In Appeal No 8844 of 2003:
(i)Appeal allowed
(ii)The order appealed from is varied to the extent only of setting aside that part thereof which ordered that the application be dismissed
(iii) The default judgment dated 6 July 2000 is to be set aside and the appellant given unconditional leave to defend
(iv) The appellant is to file and serve a defence in the proceeding within 28 days of this order
(v)The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.