Griffiths v Hanselmann

In the matter of *Griffiths v Hanselmann*, the applicant, Ms. Griffiths, sought to have a default judgment set aside, which had been entered against her in favour of the respondent, Mr. Hanselmann. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of contract, with Mr. Hanselmann claiming damages for Ms. Griffiths' failure to complete a property purchase. The application to set aside the default judgment was heard by Judge Nicholls in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Ms. Griffiths had established sufficient grounds to justify setting aside the default judgment. This required the Court to consider whether Ms. Griffiths had a meritorious defence to the claim and whether she had provided a satisfactory explanation for her failure to file a defence within the prescribed time. The Court also had to assess whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the application.

Judge Nicholls applied the principles established in cases such as *Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v Borthwick* and *Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth*. The Court noted that to set aside a default judgment, an applicant must demonstrate both a defence with real prospects of success and a reasonable explanation for the delay. In this instance, Ms. Griffiths' explanation for failing to file a defence, which involved allegations of miscommunication and oversight, was found to be insufficient. Furthermore, the Court found that the defence she sought to raise lacked sufficient merit to warrant setting aside the judgment.

Consequently, Judge Nicholls dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment.