Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Engel

Secure Funding Pty Ltd applied for leave to commence enforcement proceedings against the defendant, pursuant to rule 799 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The application was made ex parte due to the defendant's failure to respond to correspondence since 3 September 2017. The plaintiff's parent company officer, Rupert Hugh-Jones, deposed that the defendant had not replied to correspondence since then. The defendant had guaranteed a loan made by the plaintiff to Coast Development Realty Pty Ltd, which defaulted on the loan. Default judgment was entered against the defendant on 24 September 2010, but the judgment was not served on the defendant until 1 October 2013.

The court was required to determine whether there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing enforcement proceedings, and whether the defendant should be given an opportunity to respond to the material. The court noted that the defendant had not been served with the judgment for approximately three years and that the plaintiff had made multiple attempts to serve the enforcement summons on the defendant. The court also noted that the defendant had various contact with the plaintiff’s solicitors about her financial position and the enforcement summons was dismissed without a hearing taking place. However, it was unclear from the evidence what occurred from that time until 2016.

The court dismissed the application without a hearing, noting that more than six years had elapsed since the money order was made and that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court ordered that the application be adjourned to a date to be fixed and that the plaintiff serve upon the defendant the application and any material in support. The court considered that the defendant should be given an opportunity to respond to the material before any enforcement proceedings were commenced.

The court's decision highlights the importance of timely enforcement of judgments and orders, and the need for a satisfactory explanation for any delay in doing so. The court also emphasised the need to give the defendant an opportunity to respond to the material before any enforcement proceedings were commenced. The court's decision serves as a reminder to all parties involved in legal proceedings to act promptly and to provide adequate explanations for any delays in doing so.