Woolf v Sharma - [2024] WADC 68

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WOOLF -v- SHARMA [2024] WADC 68
CORAM:   CURWOOD DCJ
HEARD:   15 AUGUST 2024
DELIVERED          :   15 AUGUST 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 4540 of 2022
BETWEEN:   MAREE JOAN WOOLF
Plaintiff
AND
HEMANT SHARMA
First Defendant
ARUNDHATI RAO PUSKOOR
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Appeal from Deputy Registrar's order setting aside default judgment - Default judgment irregular - Second defendant raised good defence on the merits - Whether plaintiff's claim is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Trustees Act 1962 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Dr C K Edwards
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	Ms K M Woods

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Delta Legal
First Defendant	:	Not applicable
Second Defendant	:	Michael Paterson & Associates

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

ABB Service Pty Ltd (formerly known as ABB Engineering Constructions Pty Ltd) v Hetherington [2001] WASCA 235
Barrymores Pty Ltd v Harris Scarfe Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers & Managers Appointed) [2001] WASC 210
Belgravia Nominees Pty Ltd v Lowe Pty Ltd [No 3] [2015] WASC 442
Browning v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2014] QCA 43
Chianti Pty Ltd v Leume Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 270; (2007) 35 WAR 488
Kamath v Allight Sykes, Landsdale [2019] WADC 98
Murray v Mydomaine Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 109
Ogbonna v Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd [No 2] [2022] WASCA 79
RT Co Pty Ltd v Minister of State for the Interior (1957) 98 CLR 168
Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67
Stone James v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 233
TSW Analytical Pty Ltd v The University of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 67
Woolf v Sharma [2024] WADC 27

CURWOOD DCJ:

[This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 15 August 2024 and has been edited from the transcript.]

Introduction and Overview

This is an appeal against an order of Deputy Registrar Harman (Deputy Registrar) made on 11 April 2024 in which the Deputy Registrar allowed an application by the second defendant to set aside a default judgment which was entered on 21 September 2023.
The Deputy Registrar concluded that the default judgment that was entered was irregular and accordingly should be set aside.
As a consequence of the Deputy Registrar concluding that the default judgment was irregularly entered, no consideration was undertaken of the second defendant's defence to the claim. However, for the hearing before the Deputy Registrar both parties put on affidavit material. For the reasons I will shortly outline, I consider that the affidavit material disclosed that the second defendant had a reasonably arguable defence on the merits to the plaintiff's claim. Further, that the affidavit evidence relied upon by the second defendant was not inherently credible.
On 19 April 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Deputy Registrar's decision. By the appeal notice, the plaintiff seeks an order that the second defendant's…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Woolf v Sharma

Details

AGLC: Woolf v Sharma [2024] WADC 68
Case: [2024] WADC 68
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woolf v Sharma, the plaintiff, Mr Woolf, sought to appeal a decision of the Deputy Registrar that had set aside a default judgment previously entered against the second defendant, Mr Sharma. The dispute arose from a claim for damages for breach of contract, with the original proceedings conducted in the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff had obtained a default judgment against the second defendant, but that judgment was subsequently set aside on the basis that the second defendant had a bona fide defence on the merits, and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the second defendant had indeed raised a valid defence on the merits and, if so, whether the District Court's jurisdiction over the claim was properly exercised. The court had to determine if the second defendant's defence, which challenged the merits of the plaintiff's claim, was sufficient to warrant setting aside the default judgment. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the District Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

The court found that the second defendant had indeed raised a bona fide defence on the merits, as the defence went to the heart of the claim and challenged the validity of the contract in question. The court also found that the District Court's jurisdiction was questionable, as the value of the claim appeared to fall below the jurisdictional limit of the court. Given these findings, the court held that the Deputy Registrar was correct in setting aside the default judgment. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the order setting aside the default judgment was upheld.

The court made no further orders in relation to the matter, leaving the case to proceed in the appropriate forum if the plaintiff wished to pursue the claim further.

Orders