FurFresh Pty Ltd v David Haythornthwaite

FurFresh Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an order to set aside a default judgment entered against it in favour of David Haythornthwaite (the respondent). The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a franchise agreement. The application to set aside the default judgment was heard by Katrina Brown.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to set aside the default judgment. This required the court to consider whether the applicant had a meritorious defence to the respondent's claim and whether it had provided a satisfactory explanation for its failure to file a defence within the prescribed time.

The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide a detailed or credible explanation for its delay in filing a defence. While the applicant's director, Mr. Gavan, claimed to have been unwell and preoccupied with other business matters, the court found these explanations to be vague and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the applicant did not present a sufficiently arguable defence to the respondent's claim, which was based on alleged breaches of the franchise agreement, including failure to pay royalties and advertising fees. The court applied the principles governing applications to set aside default judgments, emphasising the need for both a meritorious defence and a reasonable explanation for the default.

Given the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the absence of a clearly arguable defence, the court dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment.