Padraig Christopher McGuire v Sporting Shooters Association of Australia NSW Coffs Harbour Branch Inc

The applicant, Padraig Christopher McGuire, sought summary judgment against the respondent, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia NSW Coffs Harbour Branch Inc, for an amount of money. The respondent had entered into a consent judgment with the applicant in the Local Court. The respondent subsequently applied for the judgment to be set aside, arguing that it had not intended to consent to the amount claimed and that the proceedings were hopeless. The applicant opposed the application to set aside the judgment, arguing that the application was an abuse of process and that the respondent had not pursued its appeal rights to the District Court. The matter came before the Court for consideration of the application to set aside the judgment.

The court considered whether the application to set aside the judgment was an abuse of process. The court found that the application was not an abuse of process, as it was within the respondent's rights to seek to set aside the judgment. The court also considered whether the proceedings were hopeless or destined to fail. The court found that the proceedings were not hopeless, as there was evidence that the parties had intended to settle the matter. The court further found that the respondent's failure to pursue its appeal rights to the District Court did not render the proceedings hopeless.

The court considered whether the application to set aside the judgment was “untenable.” The court found that the application was not untenable, as the respondent had a valid basis for seeking to set aside the judgment. The court noted that the respondent had paid part of the costs into court, which demonstrated its intention to proceed with the proceedings. The court also noted that the respondent had not engaged in any conduct that would render the application hopeless or destined to fail. The court concluded that the application to set aside the judgment was not “untenable.”

The court dismissed the application to set aside the judgment. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application, to be taxed on the higher scale if not agreed. The court further ordered that the costs paid into court by the respondent be refunded to it.