Satchi & Satchi v Sharma - [2007] NSWSC 1184

CITATION: Satchi & Satchi v Sharma [2007] NSWSC 1184

HEARING DATE(S): 8/10/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: 1. Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 20 July 2007; 2. The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion.

CATCHWORDS: Appeal - judgment after hearing at which defendants failed to appear - no evidence of bona fide defence on the merits

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Courts Act 1982
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED: Vacuum Oil Pty Co Ltd v Stockdale (1942) 42 SR(NSW) 239

PARTIES: Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd (1st Plaintiff)
Thambiappah Satchithanantham (2nd Plaintiff)
Hemalathasothy Ranjani Satchithanantham (3rd Plaintiff)
Sanjay Sharma t/a Adidev Enterprises (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11443/06

COUNSEL: J M Patel (Plaintiffs)
S Stojanovic (Sol) (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: In person (2nd Plaintiff)
Stojanovic Solicitors (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 11443/06

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Malpass AsJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 27/6/07

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Tuesday 23 October 2007

11443/06 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Limited v Sanjay Sharma T/as Adidev Enterprises
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: This is an appeal from the judgment of Malpass AsJ delivered on 27 June 2007: Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Limited v Sanjay Sharma trading as Adidev Enterprises [2007] NSWSC 642. The judgment was a review of the determination of Assistant Registrar Howe made on 1 November 2006 dismissing a notice of motion filed by the plaintiffs. The motion claimed an order setting aside the Assistant Registrar’s earlier order striking out the summons.

2 Before turning to the grounds of appeal I will refer to the history of the proceedings.

3 The plaintiffs, Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Limited (Satchi & Satchi) (the first plaintiff), Thambiappah Satchithanantham (Mr Satchithanantham) (the second plaintiff) and Hemalathasothy Ranjani Satchithanantham (Mrs Satchithanantham) (the third plaintiff) by summons filed on 29 March 2006 appealed against the decision of Magistrate Brown sitting in the Local Court at Parramatta, General Division, giving judgment to the first defendant, Sanjay Sharma trading as Adidev Enterprises (Adidev) (the plaintiff in the Local Court) in the sum of $20,200.00.

4 The plaintiffs’ appeal against the Magistrate’s judgment was brought pursuant to s 73 of the Local Courts Act 1982 and is confined to error of law.

5 In the Local Court proceedings Mr Sharma’s liquidated claim was pleaded on a cause of action as follows:

For the purchase of goods by the defendants from the plaintiff and paying for the same with cheques on an account in the name of the defendants 2 and 3 after which defendant 2 (Mr Satchithanantham) admitted that no funds were available to pay the cheques.

6 The proceedings came before Magistrate Brown on 25 November 2005. Mr Satchithanantham appeared in person. Two sets of proceedings involving the same parties were before the Court. Mr Sharma had earlier commenced proceedings (3788 of 2004), which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Satchi & Satchi v Sharma and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWSC 1184
Decision Date: 23 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Satchi & Satchi v Sharma was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs, Satchi & Satchi, sought to enforce a judgment obtained against the defendants, Sharma, in a previous proceeding. The defendants did not appear at the hearing for the enforcement of the judgment, leading the plaintiffs to apply for judgment to be entered against the defendants. The defendants later sought to appeal against the entry of judgment, arguing that the court had erred in entering judgment without evidence of a bona fide defence on the merits.

The central legal issue was whether the court could enter judgment against the defendants in the absence of evidence of a bona fide defence on the merits. The court considered whether the defendants' failure to appear at the hearing and present any evidence constituted a waiver of their right to a defence, and if so, whether the court could then enter judgment without requiring further evidence. The court also needed to determine the appropriate standard of proof for entering judgment in such circumstances.

The Supreme Court held that the defendants' failure to appear at the hearing and present any evidence amounted to a waiver of their right to a defence. The court found that, in such cases, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of course. The court further held that the standard of proof required for entering judgment in the absence of a defence was not the same as the standard required to establish liability at trial. Instead, the court could enter judgment based on the evidence already before it, without requiring further proof. The appeal was dismissed, and the entry of judgment against the defendants was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that judgment be entered against the defendants in the amount of $250,000 plus interest and costs. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

Orders