RHG Mortgage Corporation Limited v Saunders

In the case of RHG Mortgage Corporation Limited versus Saunders, the dispute arose when the plaintiff, RHG Mortgage Corporation Limited, sought to enforce a default judgment against the defendant, Saunders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant's failure to comply with certain provisions of the National Credit Code constituted an irregularity or illegality under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) 36.15, which would warrant setting aside the default judgment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant had an arguable defence or if the delay in seeking to set aside the judgment was justifiable under UCPR 35.16.

The court examined the arguments presented by both parties. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's failure to comply with the National Credit Code did not amount to an irregularity or illegality, as required under UCPR 36.15. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that this failure did indeed constitute an irregularity. The court found that there was no evidence of any irregularity or illegality in the plaintiff's failure to comply with the Code, as the court noted that non-compliance did not inherently render the proceedings irregular. Furthermore, the court also found that the defendant had not made an oral hardship application as required, and this alone did not constitute an irregularity. As for UCPR 35.16, the court determined that the defendant did not have an arguable defence and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking to set aside the judgment. The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the default judgment.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the default judgment. The court found that the failure to comply with the National Credit Code did not constitute an irregularity or illegality under UCPR 36.15, and the defendant did not have an arguable defence or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay under UCPR 35.16. The court's decision was that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the default judgment.