David Chesterman KC (with Mr J C Peters) represented the respondents, instructed by Russells.
The primary issues considered were whether leave should be granted to appeal a default judgment entered under r 5.25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), following repeated noncompliance with court orders including a request for particulars and a notice to produce. The applicants argued that the default judgment was disproportionate and that their conduct did not warrant such a sanction.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the applicant’s conduct was contumacious and contumelious, and that no sufficient doubt attended the primary judge’s exercise of discretion. The Full Court held that although substantial injustice would result if the decision were wrong, the appeal grounds were not reasonably arguable and did not justify reconsideration.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
