Secured Lending 1 Pty Ltd v Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Secured Lending 1 Pty Ltd, commenced proceedings against the defendant, Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd, seeking possession of land due to the defendant's mortgage default. The dispute arose from the defendant's failure to maintain the required payments on a mortgaged property, prompting the plaintiff to file a statement of claim and seek an ex parte application for possession. Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd did not participate in the proceedings, and the plaintiff moved for a signed consent judgment in the defendant's absence. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to enter a signed consent judgment without the defendant's presence and whether doing so would be fair.

The court examined the circumstances under which the plaintiff sought a signed consent judgment and considered the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. It was noted that Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd had not been given an opportunity to respond to the application, raising concerns about the fairness of entering a judgment in their absence. The court also considered the nine-month lapse since the statement of claim was filed, during which there had been no activity in the proceedings. The court concluded that entering a signed consent judgment without the defendant's input was not in the interests of fairness, and the orders dismissing the proceedings were set aside.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a signed consent judgment and set aside the orders that had been made. The matter was listed for further directions to allow the defendant an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need to provide all parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond to applications and motions in court proceedings. The final orders ensured that Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd would have the chance to participate in the proceedings, safeguarding their rights and the principles of natural justice.