FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| TRAZBLEND v SIMON MATHEWS AVIATION & ANOR (No.2) | [2007] FMCA 373 |
| TRADE PRACTICES – Application to set aside judgment − delay − where judgment in the substantive proceedings was entered against the respondent after the respondent failed to appear − where the judgment was used to ground a bankruptcy notice and later a bankruptcy petition − where the respondent failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice − where the respondent claims to have a defence to the substantive proceedings − where the summary judgment was stayed for 14 days allowing the respondent leave to move the court to set aside the orders made − where the respondent made no such application − where there was delay in filing the application to set aside the orders made − whether the respondent has a defence to the substantive action − whether the respondent has satisfactorily explained the delay in bringing the application to set aside judgment. |
| Trade Practices Act 1984, s.82(1) |
| Trazblend v Simon Mathews Aviation & Anor [2006] FMCA 452 KM & A Chadwick Pty Limited v Yeung (unreported) June 1995 Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473 Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2004] FCA 248 Coffey v Centrelink & Anor (2004) FCA 188 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Johnston (2006) 230 ALR 575 Yankee Doodles Pty Ltd v Blemvale Pty Ltd (Unreported, Writ No 78 of 1998, Supreme Court of Queensland) Davison v Queensland [2006] HCA 21 D’orta-Ekenaike v VLA (2005) 214 ALR 92 |
| Applicant: | TRAZBLEND PTY LIMITED ACN 002 171 664 |
| First Respondent: | SIMON MATHEWS AVIATION PTY LTD |
| Second Respondent: | SIMON PETER MATHEWS |
| File Number: | SYG 2416 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 12 March 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 12 March 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 March 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Marsdens |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms L Csillag |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Anthony Peterson & Co |
ORDERS
Application to set aside judgment dismissed.
Applicant (Simon Peter Mathews) to pay the costs of the respondent (Trazblend Pty Limited) to the application to set aside judgment to be assessed in accordance with Part 21, Rule 21.02(2)(b) and Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2416 of 2005
| TRAZBLEND PTY LIMITED ACN 002 171 664 |
Applicant
And
| SIMON MATHEWS AVIATION PTY LTD |
First Respondent
| SIMON PETER MATHEWS |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
Simon Peter Mathews wishes the court to set aside a judgment entered against him on 30 March 2006 that was used to ground a bankruptcy notice and later a bankruptcy petition against him. He failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice, although he says he did not receive it. The present application was brought following the service upon him of the bankruptcy petition in December 2006. Mr Mathews claims that he has a defence to the substantive proceedings previously heard in this court which he should now be allowed to agitate.
Throughout these reasons…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Trazblend v Simon Mathews Aviation & Anor (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] FMCA 373
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an application by Simon Peter Mathews, the sole director of Simon Mathews Aviation, to set aside a default judgment against his company and himself. The default judgment had been entered against the company for failing to comply with an interlocutory order and against himself for his personal liability as the sole director. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue before the court was whether the application to set aside the judgment was made within a reasonable time and whether there was a bona fide defence to the proceedings. The court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his application was made within a reasonable time, and the application to set aside the judgment was dismissed. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent's application to set aside judgment. The costs were to be assessed in accordance with Part 21, Rule 21.02(2)(b) and Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application to set aside judgment dismissed.
2.
Applicant (Simon Peter Mathews) to pay the costs of the respondent (Trazblend Pty Limited) to the application to set aside judgment to be assessed in accordance with Part 21, Rule 21.02(2)(b) and Schedule 1 of the
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.