Playford v Go to Court Pty Ltd

In *Playford v Go to Court Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Ms Playford, sought to set aside a default judgment entered against her in favour of the respondent, Go to Court Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of contract, with Go to Court Pty Ltd claiming Ms Playford had failed to pay for legal services rendered. Ms Playford contended that she had not been properly served with the originating process and therefore had no knowledge of the proceedings until after the default judgment was entered. The matter was heard in the District Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the default judgment should be set aside. This required the Court to consider the principles governing applications to set aside default judgments, particularly in circumstances where the applicant claims non-service of the originating process. The Court also had to determine whether Ms Playford had demonstrated a meritorious defence to the claim brought by Go to Court Pty Ltd, a common requirement for setting aside default judgments.

Judge Burnett applied the well-established principles for setting aside default judgments. The Court noted that a party seeking to set aside a default judgment must generally show either that there was a irregularity in the proceedings or that they have a defence on the merits. In this instance, Ms Playford’s primary argument centred on the alleged failure of proper service. The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the attempted service and the applicant's knowledge of the proceedings. Having found that the applicant had not been properly served and therefore had no notice of the proceedings, the Court concluded that the default judgment had been irregularly obtained. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that Ms Playford had raised a defence that ought to be tried.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the default judgment be set aside, and that Ms Playford be at liberty to file and serve her defence within a specified period. The Court also made orders regarding the costs of the application.