Dunstan v Higham (No 2)
Case
•
[2016] ACTCA 28
•27 July 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dunstan v Higham (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 28
[2016] ACTCA 28
27 July 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Dunstan v Higham (No 2)*, the applicant sought to set aside a default judgment entered against them. The respondents were the judgment creditors. The application was heard by Elkaim J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the default judgment. This involved considering whether the applicant had a meritorious defence to the original claim and whether there was a good reason for the delay in bringing the application.
Elkaim J dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence. The Court also considered the applicant's explanation for the significant delay in seeking to set aside the judgment and found it to be unsatisfactory. The principles applied focused on the discretion of the court to set aside default judgments, requiring a demonstration of both a defence on the merits and a reasonable explanation for any delay.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the default judgment. This involved considering whether the applicant had a meritorious defence to the original claim and whether there was a good reason for the delay in bringing the application.
Elkaim J dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence. The Court also considered the applicant's explanation for the significant delay in seeking to set aside the judgment and found it to be unsatisfactory. The principles applied focused on the discretion of the court to set aside default judgments, requiring a demonstration of both a defence on the merits and a reasonable explanation for any delay.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Dunstan v Higham (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 28
Most Recent Citation
Dunstan v Orr (No 2) [2023] FCA 1536
Cases Citing This Decision
5
Dunstan v Higham (No 3)
[2020] ACTCA 50
Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
[2018] FCAFC 79
Dunstan v Orr
[2025] FCA 858
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
Dunstan v Higham
[2016] ACTCA 20
Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v The J Aron Corporation and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc
[2007] NSWCA 195
Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council
[1982] HCA 41