Thompson v Madsen-Ries

The appeal involves Mr. Thompson's attempt to set aside a judgment against him, granted by default under r 15.9, on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The lower court judge denied the application under r 15.10, which allows a court to set aside or vary a default judgment if a miscarriage of justice has occurred or may occur. The case has been contentious, with detailed submissions from both sides. However, the court found that the trial judge's decision to dismiss the appeal was correct, primarily due to the unreliability of Mr. Thompson's account and the substantial delay in bringing the application.

The key legal issues in the case were whether Mr. Thompson had a substantial defence, if there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in setting aside the judgment, and whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if the judgment was set aside. The trial judge found that Mr. Thompson's account was not credible and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, and that there was no substantial ground of defence. The court of appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, finding that the appeal depended on the credibility of Mr. Thompson's account, which the trial judge had rightly found to be lacking.

The court of appeal reasoned that the trial judge correctly applied the test for setting aside a judgment under r 15.10, and found no miscarriage of justice. The court found that Mr. Thompson had no substantial ground of defence and that the delay in bringing the application was extraordinary. The court also found that the liquidators' reliance on the argument that a 2008 transfer was made with intent to prejudice creditors was valid, despite the liquidators not initially relying on this ground. The court found that there was no prejudice to Mr. Thompson and that the transfer to the Trust was genuine, but subsequently cancelled by the parties' conduct.

The court of appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the application to set aside the judgment. The court found that the trial judge's decision was correct and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the delay in bringing the application was extraordinary and that there was no substantial ground of defence. The appeal was dismissed with costs.