St George Bank v Hammer (No 3)

The case before the court involved St George Bank as the plaintiff and Hammer as the defendant. The dispute arose from a default judgment entered against Hammer, which the defendant sought to set aside. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Hammer argued that the bank's conduct during the litigation was so egregious that it warranted setting aside the default judgment. The bank, on the other hand, contended that the judgment should stand and that the defendant's application was without merit.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the bank's conduct during the litigation amounted to a lack of courtesy that justified setting aside the default judgment and whether the principles governing the vitiation of assignments could be applied to this situation. The court also needed to determine if the entry of the default judgment constituted a denial of natural justice and whether the presence of tenants on the property in question prevented the mortgagee from taking possession.

The court held that while the bank's conduct in the litigation could be characterised as lacking courtesy, this alone was not sufficient to warrant setting aside the default judgment. The court emphasised that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 did not provide a basis for setting aside a default judgment on the grounds of unconscionability. Additionally, the principles applicable to the vitiation of assignments were not relevant in this context. The court also found that the entry of the default judgment did not constitute a denial of natural justice. Finally, the court held that the presence of tenants did not prohibit the mortgagee from taking possession of the property. The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.