Westpac Banking Corporation v Wedutenko

[2016] NSWSC 477

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Westpac Banking Corporation v Wedutenko [2016] NSWSC 477
Hearing dates:	7 April 2016
Date of orders:	07 April 2016
Decision date:	07 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Wilson J
Decision:	1. The proceedings are to be reinstated forthwith. 2. The matter is adjourned to the Registrar’s call-over list at 9 am on 28 April 2016. 3. Direct the Registrar to send a copy of the orders to the defendant forthwith. 4. Note the undertaking of the plaintiff to send correspondence to the defendant advising him of the orders made today and the listing of the matter on 28 April 2016.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – order to reinstate proceedings – no appearance of the defendant
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Westpac Banking Corporation (Plaintiff) John Majella Wedutenko (Defendant)
Representation:	Ms S Dokli (Kemp Strang) No appearance of the defendant
File Number(s):	2015/00028855
Publication restriction:	None

ex tempore Judgment

1. By Notice of Motion filed with the Court on 29 March 2016, the plaintiff in these proceedings, Westpac Banking Corporation, seeks an order reinstating the proceedings forthwith.

2. The defendant, John Majella Wedutenko, has been called three times outside the court at 11.20 am this morning but does not appear. There is evidence before the Court that he was served with process on 31 March 2016, that being the date on which a copy of the relevant documentation was forwarded to him by the solicitor for the plaintiff, at his address in Tanja.

3. The proceedings relate to a Statement of Claim filed by the plaintiff for debt. They had initially been placed on hold by the plaintiff after some negotiations with the defendant gave rise to a hope that the debt would be settled. The defendant had agreed to make payments against the outstanding debt and, it appears, did so for some period, but lapsed in payments and no further payments have been forthcoming. In expectation of the matter being settled without need for court orders, the plaintiff placed the action on hold. It remained inactive and, by oversight, there was no application made to extend the proceedings.

4. The oversight is regrettable but it appears to me that there is no prejudice to the defendant thereby. Indeed, if anything, he has perhaps been afforded a greater period of time in which to take steps to settle the outstanding debt against him.

5. That not having occurred, it is appropriate, in my view, to reinstate the proceedings. Accordingly, I propose to make the orders sought in the Notice of Motion.

ORDERS

1. The proceedings are to be reinstated forthwith.

2. The matter is adjourned to the Registrar’s call-over list at 9 am on 28 April 2016.

3. Direct the Registrar to send a copy of the orders to the defendant forthwith.

4. Note the undertaking of the plaintiff to send correspondence to the defendant advising him of the orders made today and the listing of the matter on 28 April 2016.

**********

Decision last updated: 20 April 2016