Kathryn Staite v A40F Group Pty Ltd - [2021] NTLC 12

CITATION:Kathryn Staite v A40F Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] NTLC012
PARTIES:KATHRYN STAITE
V
A40F GROUP PTY LTD
(ABN 85 615 032 758)
AND
CHERIE LEANNE KEATCH

TITLE OF COURT:  LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION:  CIVIL
FILE NO(s):2020-02425-LC
DELIVERED ON:  12 April 2021
DELIVERED AT:  DARWIN
HEARING DATE(s):  8 February 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  JR Norrington
CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL LAW – LOCAL COURT (CIVIL JURISDICTION) RULES 1998 (NT) – costs of an application to set aside default judgment irregularly entered.

Local Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Rules 1998, rr 2.01, 2.04, 6.03, 7.05, 11.01, 11.02, 11.03(2)(a), 22.07, 36.01, 38.02, 38.03.
Local Court (Civil Procedure) Act 1989 (NT), s 20.
Supreme Court Rules 1987, rr 2.01, 63.18.
ACN 076 676 438 Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor -V- A-Comms Teledata Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] WASC 214
Anlaby v Pretorius (1888) 20 QB 764
Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd v Francis & Anor [1995] NTSC 20
Building Guarantee and Discount Co Ltd v Dolejsi [1967] VicRp 94
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
City Mutual Life Assurance Society v Giannarelli [1977] VicRp 53
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kilpatrick [2013] NSWSC 169
Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256
Cusack v. De Angelis [2007] QCA 313
Elders Finance Limited v Invaway Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 398
Ezi-Frame Ply Lid v. Al-Cote (Australia) Pty Ltd [1982] Qd. R. 602
Faircharm Investments Ltd v Citibank International plc [1998] EWCA Civ 171
Gemini Property Investments v Woodards Investments (2000) SASC 210
Greg Meyer Paving Ply Ltd v Can-Recycling (SA) Pty Ltd and Greg Meyer Paving Pty Ltd v Marine Stores Pry Limited [2021] NTSC 16 at 16
Harkness v Bell's Asbestos and Engineering Ltd [1967] 2 QB 729
In Re Pritchard [1963] 1 Ch 502
Reid v Jensen [2002] QDC 247
RHG Mortgage Corporation Limited (formerly known as RAMS Mortgage Corporation Limited) v Cvetkovski [2015] NSWSC 753
TTE Pty Ltd v Ken Day Pty Ltd (1990) 2 NTLR 143

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:Ms Stephenson
First Defendant No Appearance
Second Defendant: Mr Sanders

Solicitors:
Plaintiff:De Silva Hebron Barristers & Solicitors
First Defendant No Appearance
Second Defendant: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Judgment category classification:                B
Judgment ID number:  012
Number of paragraphs:  41

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 2020-02425-LC
BETWEEN
KATHRYN STAITE
Plaintiff
AND
A40F GROUP PTY LTD
(ABN 85 615 032 758)
First Defendant
AND
CHERIE LEANNE KEATCH
Second Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 12 April 2021)
CORAM: NORRINGTON JR

On 8 February 2021 I heard an application for costs in relation an interlocutory application filed by the second defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment. The plaintiff consented to an order being made setting aside the order for default judgment but opposed an order for costs as sought by the second defendant.
The first defendant was not heard on the application.
After hearing submissions from counsel for each party on the question of costs, I reserved my decision.

Factual background of the matter

The proceedings commenced by way of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kathryn Staite v A40F Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NTLC 12
Decision Date: 12 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Local Court of the Northern Territory, Kathryn Staite brought an action against A40F Group Pty Ltd, seeking to set aside a default judgment that had been entered against her. The default judgment arose from A40F’s claim for debt, which was based on an alleged breach of a loan agreement. Ms Staite argued that the judgment was irregularly entered because she had not been properly served with the originating process and was therefore unaware of the proceedings against her.

The court was required to determine whether the default judgment could be set aside due to the alleged irregularity in service and, if so, whether the applicant should be awarded costs for the application to set aside. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Local Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Rules 1998 (NT) and applicable case law regarding service of process and the setting aside of default judgments.

The court found that Ms Staite had not been properly served with the originating process, leading to the irregular entry of the default judgment. The court accepted that Ms Staite had a genuine prospect of successfully defending the claim if the proceedings were properly served and conducted. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment and ordered that the matter proceed to trial. In addition, the court awarded Ms Staite costs for the application to set aside the default judgment, considering the irregularity in service and the outcome of the application.

The final orders of the court included the setting aside of the default judgment and the awarding of costs to Ms Staite for the application. The case was to be listed for trial to determine the merits of A40F’s claim against Ms Staite.

Orders