Zippoz Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd

The appeal before Basten and Young JJA concerned an application by Zippoz Pty Ltd for leave to appeal a default judgment entered against it in favour of National Australia Bank Ltd. The dispute arose from proceedings in which writs of possession for land had been issued, and Zippoz Pty Ltd had not filed a proper defence.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether there was any error on the part of the primary judge in entering default judgment, whether further evidence proffered on the leave application should be admitted on appeal, and whether a further application to set aside the judgment should have been made to a single judge. The Court also considered whether Zippoz Pty Ltd should be permitted a further opportunity to seek to set aside the judgment, particularly in light of a change of lawyers.

The Court determined that no error had been demonstrated on the part of the primary judge. It was held that the further evidence proffered on the leave application was unlikely to be admitted on appeal, and that any application to set aside the default judgment should have been made to a single judge in the first instance. The Court applied the principles governing appeals from default judgments, noting that leave to appeal is generally required and that such appeals are not granted as of right. The Court also considered the provisions of s 75A(8) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) in relation to setting aside default judgments.

The Court dismissed the amended summons seeking leave to appeal. However, it ordered that the Sheriff take no further action to enforce the writs of possession for a period of 14 days from the date of the orders. Zippoz Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.