Gregory's Transport Pty Ltd v Ray's Haulage Pty Ltd

[2008] NSWCA 333

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Default judgment
3. › Entry of monetary judgment after striking out defence
4. › Requirement for affidavit in support
5. › Whether magistrate empowered to enter judgment for specific amount without evidence
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 16.3(2), 16.6
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Default judgment
3. › Alternative sources of power to enter judgment
4. › Whether s 61(3)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2005 or UCPR r 12.7(2) authorise entry of monetary judgment without evidence
5. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 61(3)(c)
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.7(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Dispensing with procedural requirements
3. › Whether s 14 Civil Procedure Act 2005 justified entry of judgment where magistrate did not purport to rely on it
4. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 14
1. Appeal
2. › New point of law raised on appeal
3. › Whether respondent prejudiced by point not taken below
4. › Whether appellant precluded from raising point

Quick Take

A court that strikes out a defendant's defence under UCPR r 12.7(2) or s 61(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 is not thereby empowered to enter a monetary judgment for the plaintiff without evidence substantiating the claim. An affidavit in support complying with UCPR r 16.6(2) remains necessary unless the court expressly orders otherwise under r 16.3(2) with reasons. Clear words would be required to warrant the conclusion that a provision authorising the striking out of a defence was intended to permit the court to act without evidence to substantiate a monetary claim.