Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd v Bose

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luna Park Sydney Pty Limited (ACN 102 907 184) v Bose [2006] FCA 94

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment – whether failure of respondents to defend the proceedings with due diligence

Federal Court Rules – Order 35A

Arthur v Vaupotic Investments Pty Limited [2005] FCA 433 cited
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v 1Cellnet LLC [2005] FCA 856 cited
Australian Securities Commission v McLeod (1994) 54 FCR 309 referred to
Commissioner of Taxation v Finn (1960) 103 CLR 165 referred to
Grey v Mango Prepaid Calling Cards Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1664 referred to
Wu v Avin Operations Pty Limited (ACN 076 956 913) [2006] FCA 36 distinguished
Zomba Production Music v. Roadhouse Productions (2001) 190 ALR 288 referred to

LUNA PARK SYDNEY PTY LIMITED (ACN 102 907 184) v ZACHARY ART BOSE AND DROP DEAD PROMOTIONS LIMITED (NZ) (NZCN 15 40 477)

NSD534 OF 2005

JACOBSON J
8 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD534 of 2005

BETWEEN:

LUNA PARK SYDNEY
PTY LIMITED (ACN 102 907 184)
APPLICANT

AND:

ZACHARY ART BOSE AND

FIRST RESPONDENT

DROP DEAD PROMOTIONS
LIMITED (NZ) (NZCN 15 40 477)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.     The applicant is given leave to file a notice of motion in court, returnable instanter, pursuant to Order 19 Rule 3.

2.     Default judgment is ordered, pursuant to Order 35 Rule (2)(2)(h).

3.     The respondents pay the Applicant damages in the amount of AUD$125,193.95;

4.     The respondents pay the applicant interest on the amount of AUD$125,193.95 at an interest rate of 10.5% per year calculated over the period from 30 September 2004 to 8 February 2006;

5.     The respondents pay the applicant’s costs on a party-party basis.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD534 of 2005

BETWEEN:

LUNA PARK SYDNEY
PTY LIMITED (ACN 102 907 184)
APPLICANT

AND:

ZACHARY ART BOSE AND

FIRST RESPONDENT

DROP DEAD PROMOTIONS
LIMITED (NZ) (NZCN 15 40 477)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

8 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application for default judgment pursuant to Order 35A of the Federal Court Rules.  The applicant seeks default judgment by reason of the failure of the respondents to defend the proceedings with due diligence. 

  2. The notice of motion seeking default judgment was filed in court today.  It was served on Friday, 3 February 2006, which is less than the three days clear notice prescribed by the rules.  I will refer to this later.

  3. The proceedings relate to the planned performance of a performer known as "Busta Rhymes" at Luna Park Sydney.  The applicants claim that they entered into a contract with Mr Bose of Drop Dead Promotion New Zealand, as agent for Busta Rhymes, for the performance…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd v Bose 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
[2006] FCA 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by Luna Park Sydney Pty Ltd against Mr Bose, an agent representing the performer Busta Rhymes, for breach of contract. The applicants alleged they had entered into a contract for the performance of Busta Rhymes at Luna Park Sydney on 29 September 2004, which was not fulfilled, leading to a claim for damages. The court was required to consider the legal implications of the respondents' default in the proceedings and determine whether to grant default judgment in favour of the applicants.

The primary issue before the court was whether the respondents' failure to defend the proceedings justified the granting of default judgment. The applicants sought an order for damages, interest, and costs. The respondents had ceased to be represented by legal counsel and had not responded to the applicants' attempts to serve the notice of motion for default judgment. The court had to assess whether the respondents were in default and if the applicants' claims were substantiated enough to warrant a default judgment.

The court determined that the respondents' failure to appear or defend the proceedings constituted a default. The court noted that both firms of solicitors retained by the respondents had ceased to act, indicating that the respondents were not actively defending the case. Additionally, the court found that the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to support their claims, and the lack of a defence did not negate the validity of the claims. Therefore, the court concluded that the applicants' claims were substantiated, and the court's powers to make orders on default were applicable.

Accordingly, the court granted the applicants' motion for default judgment. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicants AUD$125,193.95 in damages, interest at a rate of 10.5% per annum from 30 September 2004 to 8 February 2006, and the applicants' costs on a party-party basis. This decision effectively resolved the dispute in favour of the applicants, confirming the respondents' liability for the breach of contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant is given leave to file a notice of motion in court, returnable instanter, pursuant to Order 19 Rule 3.

2. Default judgment is ordered, pursuant to Order 35 Rule (2)(2)(h).

3. The respondents pay the Applicant damages in the amount of AUD$125,193.95;

4. The respondents pay the applicant interest on the amount of AUD$125,193.95 at an interest rate of 10.5% per year calculated over the period from 30 September 2004 to 8 February 2006;

5. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs on a party-party basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

The proceedings relate to the planned performance of a performer known as "Busta Rhymes" at Luna Park Sydney. The applicants claim that they entered into a contract with Mr Bose of Drop Dead Promotion New Zealand, as agent for Busta Rhymes, for the performance of Busta Rhymes at Luna Park on 29 September 2004. Mr Rhymes did not ultimately perform. The orders sought include claims for damages for breach of contract.Background On 2 June 2005, I gave leave to the applicant to serve an amended statement of claim outside the Commonwealth in accordance with Division 2 of Order 8 of the Federal Court Rules. On 30 June 2005 at a directions hearing before me there was no appearance by the respondents. I stood the matter over to 4 August 2005. On 4 August 2005 there was still no appearance from the respondents and the applicant indicated that it wished to file an application for default judgment. On 24 August 2005, the matter was listed for hearing of the application for default judgment. However, at the hearing the respondents appeared by solicitors Messrs Gray and Perkins who filed a notice of appearance on that date. Orders were made for the filing of a defence and a defence was filed on 29 September 2005. At a directions hearing on 29 September 2005 I referred the matter to mediation and listed it for further directions on 24 November 2005. I subsequently vacated the directions hearing and relisted it for directions on 15 December 2005. On 7 December 2005, Messrs Gray and Perkins filed a notice of ceasing to act supported by an affidavit of a partner of that firm. At the directions hearing on 15 December 2005 there was no appearance by the respondents. The solicitor for the applicant indicated on that date that the applicant would be seeking an order for default judgment. I stood the matter over to today. On 6 January 2006, the solicitors for the applicant wrote to each of the respondents informing them that the application for default judgment would be listed for hearing before me this morning as a consequence of the failure of the respondents to appear at the directions hearing on 15 December 2005. There has been no reply to those letters. Both firms of solicitors retained by the respondents have ceased to act and it appears that monies are owing to them for legal fees. In those circumstances it seems to me that the respondents are not defending the proceeding and the court's powers to make orders on default are enlivened. It seems to me to be appropriate to proceed today on the notice of motion notwithstanding that it was served less than three clear days before the date fixed for the hearing of the notice of motion. A copy of the form of the proposed notice of motion was sent by the solicitors for the applicant to the respondents’ by facsimile on 3 February 2006 and by regular post on 6 February 2006.Discussions It was until recently well settled that there was no presumption upon default of the respondent of the correctness of the applicant's claims: see Commissioner of Taxation v Finn (1960) 103 CLR 165.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.