The Court summarily enforced a settlement deed within the existing proceeding under the Roberts v Gippsland jurisdiction, holding that the opposing defendants' withdrawal of consent to judgment was irrelevant because the summary enforcement mechanism depends on consent at the time of settlement, not at the time of the application. The Court rejected defences based on alleged pre-contractual representations that the plaintiffs would not enforce strictly on default, finding the evidence insufficient, implausible in light of the defendants' own prior offers containing identical default regimes, and a recent invention raised only after the enforcement application was filed. While accepting that entire agreement and non-reliance clauses cannot oust statutory claims under the Australian Consumer Law (following Viterra Malt v Cargill), the Court held those clauses constituted evidence capable of negating reliance, and that the opposing defendants had failed to establish any element of the defences and counterclaims they sought to raise.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.