MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Shreeve & Anor v Scott [2020] QMC 10
PARTIES:
RALPH EDWARD SHREEVE
(First Plaintiff)SAMANTHA KATHRYN SHREEVE
(Second Plaintiff)v
RHYS DAVID ANDREW SCOTT
(Defendant)FILE NO/S:
M2181 of 2018
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Interlocutory Applications filed 31 March 2020
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
MAGISTRATE:
Magistrate Hay
ORDER:
[1] The defendant’s application filed 31 March 2020 to set aside the default judgement entered on 18 January 2019 is dismissed.
[2] Within 21 days of the delivery of these reasons, the parties are to file and serve any written submissions on the issue of costs, if not agreed, together with draft orders.
COUNSEL:
P A Beehre of counsel for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Carter Newell Lawyers for the Plaintiffs/Respondents
Defendant – self represented (direct brief to counsel)
The defendant applies to set aside a default judgment entered by an acting Registrar on 18 January 2019 (‘Application to Set Aside’). This is the second time the defendant has brought such an application, having failed to appear on his first application.
The defendant asserts that he was unaware of these proceedings until 19 October 2019, when a party sought to join him to Federal Magistrates Court proceedings.[1]
[1] Affidavit of the defendant filed 31 March 2020 at [19]. See also Submissions of the Applicant/Defendant filed by email on 15 May 2020 and Further Submissions of the Applicant/Defendant filed by email on 21 May 2020.
Relevant Factual Background and Findings
On 18 September 2018 an unknown agent engaged by KR & S Risk and Security Management is purported to have had a telephone conversation with the defendant in which the defendant “advised that he resides in Brisbane, however he refused to provide his exact address… confirmed that he had contact details for Cater [sic] Newell Lawyers and will make direct contact with them regarding this matter.”[2]
[2] Affidavit of L J Preston filed 28 September 2018, Exhibit LJP 3.
On 3 October 2018 orders for substituted service upon the defendant were made (the ‘Substituted Service Order’).[3] As a consequence of these orders, the plaintiff was entitled to serve the defendant:
[3] Order of Magistrate Cull dated 3 October 2018.
1. By post at:
(a) 110 Basnett St, Chermside West;
(b) Lot 2, 9 Valente Close, Chermside;
(c) 110 Haynes Kite Miller Rd, Blackbutt South.
2. Email to rds@burnettmeatco.com.au.
On 19 October 2018 the defendant says he became aware of these proceedings. [4] This is inconsistent with the hearsay evidence adduced in the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ solicitor, although I am not inclined to give the hearsay evidence any weight because:
1. it is not only hearsay, but second hand;
2. the source of the information is not disclosed.[5]
[4] Affidavit of the defendant filed 31 March 2020 at [19].
[5] Affidavit of L J Preston filed 28 September 2018, Exhibit LJP 3.
On 26 October 2018 the plaintiffs’ solicitors effected service by post and…
Continue reading Shreeve and Anor v Scott
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Shreeve v Scott [2020] QMC 10
- Case
- [2020] QMC 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the procedural history and the grounds provided by the defendant for setting aside the judgement. It assessed whether the defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and whether there were any other compelling reasons to set aside the judgement. The court concluded that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence or justification to warrant setting aside the default judgement. The court found that the defendant had failed to demonstrate any arguable defence to the claims, nor had they shown any satisfactory explanation for their delay in responding to the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the judgement.
In light of the court's decision, it ordered that the defendant's application filed on March 31, 2020, to set aside the default judgement entered on January 18, 2019, be dismissed. The court further directed that within 21 days of the delivery of these reasons, the parties were to file and serve any written submissions on the issue of costs, if not agreed, together with draft orders. This decision underscores the importance of timely responses in legal proceedings and the stringent scrutiny applied to applications to set aside default judgements.
Orders
Orders of the court
[1] The defendant’s application filed 31 March 2020 to set aside the default judgement entered on 18 January 2019 is dismissed.
[2] Within 21 days of the delivery of these reasons, the parties are to file and serve any written submissions on the issue of costs, if not agreed, together with draft orders.
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.