H M and O Investments Pty Limited v Ingram (No.4)

The court was presented with an appeal from a decision made by a single judge in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, H M and O Investments Pty Limited, contested the dismissal of their application to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent, Ingram. The primary issue was whether the appellant's evidence, which was deemed defective in form, could be admitted under the discretionary powers granted by section 135 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate application of the discretion under section 135, specifically whether it should be exercised in this case.

The court considered whether the defect in the appellant's evidence was such that it warranted the exercise of the discretion under section 135. The court acknowledged the importance of the discretion to ensure that justice is not denied due to technicalities. However, the court held that there was no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that evidence must comply with the statutory requirements. The court reasoned that the defect in the appellant's evidence did not rise to the level of a question of principle that would justify invoking section 135. The court concluded that the judge's decision to reject the evidence and dismiss the application was not an error.

The court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the decision of the primary judge. The court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the discretion under section 135 should have been exercised in their favour. The court's decision was final, and no further appeal was permitted.