Trazblend v Simon Mathews Aviation & Anor (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

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

  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 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

  1. 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.

  2. Throughout these reasons…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] FMCA 373
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Supreme Court Rules 2000.

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.