Creative Cooks Pty Ltd v Aretzis Properties Pty Ltd

Creative Cooks Pty Ltd, as plaintiff, sought permission to appeal against a decision of a District Court Judge who had refused to set aside a default judgment obtained by Aretzis Properties Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned the regularity of the default judgment entered against Creative Cooks Pty Ltd for breach of a lease agreement.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the default judgment was irregularly obtained, whether the plaintiff had provided adequate notice of its intention to enter default judgment, and whether the defendants' defence of economic duress was arguable. Specifically, the court considered whether the inclusion of both liquidated and unliquidated sums in the prayer for relief rendered the default judgment irregular under Rule 229 of the District Court Rules 2006 (SA), and whether a specific email constituted sufficient notice of the intention to enter default judgment.

The Full Court, comprising Kourakis CJ, Stanley and Doyle JJ, held that the Judge had correctly determined that the default judgment was regularly obtained. The court reasoned that a claim for unpaid rent was a discrete liquidated sum for the purposes of Rule 229, even if other unliquidated sums were also claimed. Furthermore, the court found that the email sent by the plaintiff's solicitors provided sufficient notice of the intention to enter default judgment, rejecting the defendants' contention of a binding practice requiring more specific or longer warning. Finally, the court agreed with the Judge that the defence of economic duress was not arguable, as the circumstances relied upon by the defendants constituted ordinary market forces and commercial negotiations, rather than vitiating duress.

Permission to appeal was refused.