Toyota Finance Australia Limited v Antonia Suntsova

Toyota Finance Australia Limited commenced proceedings against Antonia Suntsova, the Second Defendant, seeking restitution of a sum of money. The claim was filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the principles set out in Part 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) could be applied by analogy in the context of a restitution claim. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate costs order for the Fifth Defendant who filed a notice of motion without taking any steps to progress it.

In addressing the first issue, the court found that the principles in Part 16, which pertain to default judgment, could indeed be applied by analogy to a restitution claim. The court reasoned that the absence of the Second Defendant did not prevent the court from considering the claim on its merits, and thus, the claim could proceed to judgment. Regarding the costs order, the court held that the Fifth Defendant's inaction warranted the dismissal of the motion with costs. The court considered the Fifth Defendant's conduct to be an abuse of the court process, justifying the imposition of costs against them.

The court ruled that the principles of Part 16 could be applied by analogy to restitution claims, allowing the proceedings to continue to judgment in the absence of the Second Defendant. Additionally, the Fifth Defendant's failure to take any steps after filing the notice of motion led to the dismissal of the motion with costs awarded against them.

The court ordered that the proceedings against the Second Defendant would continue, and that the Fifth Defendant would bear the costs of the interlocutory motion.