Hannan v Goldberg

The application before the court was for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision which had refused to set aside a default judgment in proceedings between Hannan and Goldberg. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of a contract between the parties. Goldberg had been granted a default judgment in the original proceedings. Hannan subsequently applied to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the absence of a draft defence at the time the judgment was entered did not preclude the court from considering the merits of the defence. The court was required to decide whether the primary judge had erred in taking into account the absence of a draft defence and whether the short affidavit advancing the defence had disclosed facts which established a bona fide defence on the merits.

The court found that the primary judge had not erred in taking into account the absence of a draft defence. The court held that the absence of a draft defence was a relevant consideration in determining whether the defendant had a bona fide defence. The court also found that the short affidavit advancing the defence did not disclose facts which established a bona fide defence on the merits. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the defendant had a bona fide defence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the court found that the evidence did not support a finding that the primary judge had erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment.

No further orders were made by the court in relation to the appeal. The default judgment remains in place and the parties are bound by its terms. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely and adequate disclosure of a defence in proceedings, and the potential consequences of failing to do so.