Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Lawyers in Sydney
Lawyers in Melbourne
Lawyers in Brisbane
Lawyers in Perth
Family lawyers
Employment lawyers
Criminal lawyers
Wills and estates lawyers
Find a lawyer

Company

Pricing
API
Privacy
Terms
Support
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Commonwealth
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.

Total Peripherals P/L v Schlomo Kaplan [1998] VSC 49 | Case summary | Zoe

Zoe

Legislation Cases Guides Find a lawyer Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Ask Zoe →

Home/Cases/[1998] VSC 49

VICVSC

Total Peripherals P/L v Schlomo Kaplan [1998] VSC 49

[1998] VSC 49

Supreme Court of Victoria|1998-08-31|Before: BEACH, J.

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of Victoria

Decision date

1998-08-31

Before

BEACH, J.

Catchwords

Default judgment - Irregularity - Setting aside judgment - Requirement that defendant to counterclaim show arguable defence - Discretion to dispense with requirement.

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

Default judgment - Irregularity - Setting aside judgment - Requirement that defendant to counterclaim show arguable defence - Discretion to dispense with requirement.

Judgment (3 paragraphs)

[1]

For the reasons stated, the appeal from the orders of the Master made on 4 August 1998 whereby the judgment was set aside will be dismissed with costs to be taxed and paid by the first named defendant.

[2]

In proceeding No. 8042 of 1994 in which Total Peripherals is plaintiff and Microscience and others are defendants the sequence of events is the same as in the other proceedings. The only difference is that the default judgment was entered one minute later than that in proceeding No. 6818 of 1994.

[3]

Again for the reasons stated the appeal from the orders of the Master made on 4 August whereby the judgment entered against the plaintiff in default of defence to counterclaim was set aside will be dismissed with costs to be taxed and paid by the third named defendant.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Total Peripherals P/L

Respondent/Defendant:

Schlomo Kaplan [1998] VSC 49

Cases Cited (1)

In Hogg v. J. Isherwood-Hicks Pty. Ltd. [1992] NTSC 41; (1992) 108 F.L.R. 262 Kearney, J. dealt with an application to set aside a judgment entered in default of defence. In setting the judgment aside his Honour said at p.264: