JUDGE:	Connock J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 June 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	13 June 2025 Ex tempore; revised 18 June 2025
DATE OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT:	18 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CTRC Pty Ltd v Yao
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 345

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application pursuant to r 2.07(1) of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceeding) Rules 2018 (Vic) ch II — Leave pursuant to r 2.07(1) of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceeding) Rules 2018 (Vic) ch II to seek to enter judgment in default of appearance refused — Application for leave to proceed against a defendant served out of Australia pursuant to r 7.07 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) — Leave to proceed against a defendant served out of Australia granted — Operation of r 21.03(1.2) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) — Judgment in default of appearance not permitted to be entered in respect of a debt claim in a currency other than Australian dollars — Application for judgment in default of appearance for a debt in foreign currency — Application for judgment in default of appearance pursuant to r 21.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015 (Vic) — Principles applicable to applications under r 21.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015 (Vic) — Principles applicable to application for leave pursuant to r 7.07 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J Pytel, solicitor	McDonald, Slater & Lay
For the Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

By writ and statement of claim filed 19 June 2024, the plaintiff made a debt claim against the defendant in respect of two loans, each of SGD1,000,000, plus interest, (Debt Claim) alleged to have been advanced pursuant to two separate written loan agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant (Loan Agreements).

Substituted service orders were made by Gitsham JR on 20 September 2024 (Service Orders) in respect of service on the defendant in Singapore of the writ and statement of claim and other documents referred to in paragraph 1(a) of the Service Orders (Service Documents). Service was said to have been carried out in accordance with the Service Orders by 10 January 2025 and it was said that the defendant had failed to file an appearance within the relevant 42-day period or at all. The plaintiff’s solicitor sought to enter default judgment against the defendant through the registry in respect of the Debt Claim pursuant to r 21.03(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules).

The registry drew the plaintiff’s solicitor’s attention to the requirements of…

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 CTRC Pty Ltd v Yao

Details

AGLC: CTRC Pty Ltd v Yao [2025] VSC 345
Case: [2025] VSC 345
Decision Date: 13 June 2025 Ex tempore; revised 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CTRC Pty Ltd applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for leave to enter judgment in default of appearance against Yao, who was served with proceedings while overseas. The nature of the dispute was a claim for a debt owed in a foreign currency. The Court had to decide whether it could grant leave to enter judgment in default under Rule 21.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), and whether it could grant leave to proceed against a defendant served outside Australia under Rule 7.07 of the same Rules.

The court found that while leave could be granted to proceed against a defendant served out of Australia, judgment in default could not be entered for a debt claim in a currency other than Australian dollars. The Court held that Rule 21.03(1.2) of the Rules precluded the entry of judgment in default for such claims. The Court further explained that the principles guiding applications under Rule 21.04 required the plaintiff to demonstrate a compelling reason for entering judgment in default, and in this case, the foreign currency aspect of the claim was a significant obstacle.

Consequently, the Court refused the application for leave to enter judgment in default of appearance but granted leave to proceed against Yao, who was served out of Australia. The Court emphasised the need for careful consideration of the specific circumstances of each case when dealing with applications under Rule 21.04 and Rule 7.07 of the Rules.

Orders