Malak v Pepsico Australia Pty Limited

The matter before the court involved Malak, the plaintiff, and Pepsico Australia Pty Limited, the defendant. The dispute arose out of an alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to have a default judgment set aside, which had been entered against them due to their failure to respond to the defendant’s statement of claim.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had a sufficient explanation for their failure to respond to the defendant’s claim and whether the defendant would suffer substantial injustice if the default judgment was set aside. The court was required to consider the relevant provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules, specifically Part 40 r 9(2), which governs the setting aside of default judgments.

The court found that the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to respond, which was due to a misunderstanding of the court’s processes. The court also considered that the defendant would not suffer substantial injustice if the default judgment was set aside, as the defendant had not incurred significant costs or expenses as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to respond. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment and allow the plaintiff’s claim to proceed to trial. No final orders have yet been made in the matter.