Goldman, Sachs & Co.

This matter concerned an application by Goldman Sachs & Co. (the applicant) for an order under s 100 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW) to set aside a default judgment entered against it in favour of Mr. David Goldman (the respondent). The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by Mr. Goldman concerning alleged breaches of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct.

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 also had to assess whether it was in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the applicant's explanation for the delay, which it found to be unsatisfactory and lacking in detail. The Court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated a strong or arguable defence to the respondent's claim. Applying the principles established in cases such as *Meates v. Sutherland Shire Council* (1990) 20 NSWLR 307, the Court determined that the applicant had failed to satisfy the necessary criteria for setting aside a default judgment. The Court found that the applicant had not shown a meritorious defence and had not provided a sufficient explanation for its failure to comply with the rules.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's application to set aside the default judgment.