The Court set aside a regularly entered default judgment for possession, finding the self-represented defendant had an arguable defence based on unconscionable conduct (including allegations of asset-based lending and exploitation of vulnerability) and a potentially arguable defence under the NCCP Act, notwithstanding that numerous other alleged defences were rejected as unarguable. The Court emphasised that 'snapping on' default judgment — here filed just two business days after expiry of the appearance period — without any prior enquiry of the defendant is inconsistent with overarching obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), and that this practice weighs against the plaintiff in the exercise of the discretion. The question of whether the National Credit Code applied to the loan (given the borrower was a company but the defendant assumed personal liability as guarantor) was left unresolved, with the Court noting it depended on proper construction of the liability clauses at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members.