Michael Isgro v 12 Round Pty Ltd

Michael Isgro (the applicant) sought to set aside a default judgment entered against him in favour of 12 Round Pty Ltd (the respondent). The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a franchise agreement. The application to set aside the default judgment was heard by a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to set aside the default judgment. This involved considering whether the applicant had a meritorious defence to the respondent's claim and whether he had provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to file a defence within the prescribed time. The Court also had to determine whether it was in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.

The Court applied the principles established in *Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Cussons Pty Ltd* and *Meek v. Caruso*, which require a party seeking to set aside a default judgment to demonstrate both a defence on the merits and an explanation for the delay. The applicant argued that he had a defence based on alleged breaches by the respondent of the franchise agreement. However, the Court found that the evidence provided by the applicant in support of his defence was vague and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the explanation for the failure to file a defence, which involved allegations of miscommunication and illness, was not considered sufficiently compelling by the Court to excuse the default.

Ultimately, the Court found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the necessary requirements for setting aside the default judgment. The application was therefore dismissed.