Welch v Hirvonen

[2013] QDC 219

[2013] QDC 219

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 477 of 2013

PIRJO JOHANNA WELCH  Plaintiff

and

PEKKA ENSIO HIRVONEN  Defendant

BRISBANE

10.17 AM, TUESDAY, 21 MAY 2013

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 150(3)(e), r283, r 288

Default judgment  where registry refused it because of omission of the notice of [intention to defend] costs of obtaining default judgment

HIS HONOUR:   The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.  It grants judgment to the plaintiff in default of filing of any notice of intention to defend by the defendant.  The claim is for liquidated amounts which means it might have been anticipated judgment would be obtained in the Registry under rule 283.  However, difficulties were encountered by the plaintiff applicant’s solicitors given that the statement of claim did not comply with subrule (3) of rule 150, paragraph (e) of which requires a statement of the additional costs of obtaining judgment in default of notice of intention to defend.

I assume the application is presented to the court as one under rule 288.  The bulk of the claim is represented by $130 000 advance which was made by the mother of the plaintiff, who is her executor, and brother of the defendant.  The transaction and entitlement to interest is established by an acknowledgement signed by the defendant.  Some $31 000 of the claim amounts covers further advances in respect of which interest is not claimed.  There’s no evidence of those but, of course, there need not be.  It’s sufficient that the claim is set out in the statement of claim in an appropriate way and that the defendant has chosen not to defend. 

Order as per initialled draft.  I think the notice ought to have been included in relation to costs.  It is set out in form 16.  Perhaps I ought to have noted that the plaintiff has obtained a grant of probate before commencing her proceeding. 

______________________