Reid v Jensen - [2002] QDC 247

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
Reid v Jensen [2002] QDC 247

PARTIES:
GRANT REID AS TRUSTEE FOR THE COVERDALE SUPERANNUATION FUND
Plaintiff
and

PETER JENSEN
Defendant

FILE NO/S:
148/2002

DIVISION:
Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:
Application

DELIVERED ON:
26 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:
Southport

HEARING DATE:
24 May, 12 & 28 June, and 13 August 2002

JUDGE:
Alan Wilson SC DCJ

ORDER:
1. Defendant’s application to set aside default judgment dismissed.

2. The judgment by default obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on 27 March 2002 be amended to the sum of $212,845.50 comprised of $189,874.50 for claim and $22,980.00 for interest.

CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE – DEFAULT JUDGMENT – SETTING ASIDE – whether defendant entitled to have default judgment for incorrect amount set aside – cross-application by plaintiff to amend default judgment to show correct amount – defendant not establishing a good defence

PRACTICE – AMENDMENT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT – UCPR 290 – whether judgment creditor entitled to amend default judgment entered for incorrect amount – circumstances in which amendment permitted

Plaintiff obtaining default judgment against defendant, but for incorrect amount – defendant applying to set judgment aside, but not establishing a good defence to a claim for the correct sum – plaintiff cross-applying to amend default judgment to reflect correct amount

UCPR, r 290

Cases considered:

Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Lloyd Septimis Luck (1995) 4 Tas R 328
Building Guarantee & Discount Co Ltd v Dolejsi (1967) VR 764

Building Guarantee and Discount Co Ltd v Dolesji (1967) VR 764

Champion v Fay [1983] 2 Qd R 416 (FC)

Chitty v Mason (1926) VLR 419, at 423

City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Giannarelli (1977) VR 463

City Mutual Life Assurance Society v Giannarelli (1977) VR 463
Gemini Property Investments v Woodards Investments (2000) SASC 210

National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Oasis Developments Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 441, at 449

Yankee Doodles Pty Ltd v Blemvale Pty Ltd, unreported (SC (Qld) 23 June 1999, BC 9903401)

COUNSEL:
Mr Campbell for defendant
Ms Magee for plaintiff

SOLICITORS:
Baxters solicitors for defendant
Respondent/plaintiff self-represented

The plaintiff obtained a judgment by default against the defendant for $210,000.00 on 27 March 2002. On 24 May, and 12 June 2002 I heard the defendant’s application to set that judgment aside. On 28 June 2002 I delivered reasons, holding that the default judgment was for an incorrect, and excessive amount, but also raising the question whether the plaintiff might be entitled to have the default judgment amended. The matter was then adjourned and on 8 July the plaintiff applied for amendment, and that application was heard on 13 August 2002.

In the reasons delivered 28 June 2002, I said:

[(1) The defendant applies to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff on 27 March 2002. The defendant submits, first, that it should be set aside ex debito justitiae for two reasons: that the judgment by default was entered for the wrong amount; and/or that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Reid v Jensen

Details

AGLC: Reid v Jensen [2002] QDC 247
Case: [2002] QDC 247
Decision Date: 26 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Reid v Jensen involved the plaintiff, Reid, who had obtained a default judgment against the defendant, Jensen, for an incorrect amount. Reid applied to amend the judgment to reflect the correct sum, while Jensen, in turn, sought to set aside the default judgment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues revolved around whether Jensen was entitled to have the default judgment set aside and if Reid was permitted to amend the judgment to show the correct amount, given that Jensen did not establish a good defence to the claim for the correct sum.

The court considered the circumstances under which a default judgment could be set aside and the conditions for amending such a judgment. In setting aside a default judgment, a defendant must demonstrate a good defence on the merits. Jensen did not establish any such defence, leading the court to dismiss his application. Regarding the amendment of the default judgment, the court noted that under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, a judgment creditor is entitled to amend a default judgment to correct any errors in the amount claimed. Since Jensen did not oppose the amendment and had not established a good defence, the court allowed the amendment to reflect the correct amount claimed by Reid.

The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed Jensen's application to set aside the default judgment and granted Reid's cross-application to amend the default judgment to reflect the correct amount. The final order mandated that the judgment by default obtained by Reid against Jensen on 27 March 2002 be amended to the sum of $212,845.50, consisting of $189,874.50 for the claim and $22,980.00 for interest. This decision underscores the importance of accuracy in judgments and the procedural avenues available for correcting such errors where no valid defence is presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Defendant’s application to set aside default judgment dismissed.

2. The judgment by default obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on 27 March 2002 be amended to the sum of $212,845.50 comprised of $189,874.50 for claim and $22,980.00 for interest.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Reid v Jensen [2002] QDC 247
PARTIES:	GRANT REID AS TRUSTEE FOR THE COVERDALE SUPERANNUATION FUND Plaintiff and PETER JENSEN Defendant
FILE NO/S:	148/2002
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	24 May, 12 & 28 June, and 13 August 2002
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Defendant’s application to set aside default judgment dismissed. 2. The judgment by default obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on 27 March 2002 be amended to the sum of $212,845.50 comprised of $189,874.50 for claim and $22,980.00 for interest.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE – DEFAULT JUDGMENT – SETTING ASIDE – whether defendant entitled to have default judgment for incorrect amount set aside – cross-application by plaintiff to amend default judgment to show correct amount – defendant not establishing a good defence PRACTICE – AMENDMENT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT – UCPR 290 – whether judgment creditor entitled to amend default judgment entered for incorrect amount – circumstances in which amendment permitted Plaintiff obtaining default judgment against defendant, but for incorrect amount – defendant applying to set judgment aside, but not establishing a good defence to a claim for the correct sum – plaintiff cross-applying to amend default judgment to reflect correct amount UCPR, r 290 Cases considered: Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Lloyd Septimis Luck (1995) 4 Tas R 328 Building Guarantee & Discount Co Ltd v Dolejsi (1967) VR 764 Building Guarantee and Discount Co Ltd v Dolesji (1967) VR 764 Champion v Fay [1983] 2 Qd R 416 (FC) Chitty v Mason (1926) VLR 419, at 423 City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Giannarelli (1977) VR 463 City Mutual Life Assurance Society v Giannarelli (1977) VR 463 Gemini Property Investments v Woodards Investments (2000) SASC 210 National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Oasis Developments Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 441, at 449 Yankee Doodles Pty Ltd v Blemvale Pty Ltd, unreported (SC (Qld) 23 June 1999, BC 9903401)
COUNSEL:	Mr Campbell for defendant Ms Magee for plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	Baxters solicitors for defendant Respondent/plaintiff self-represented