Groeneveld v Soevic Civil Engineering Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1810

JUDGMENT No. LL Qual Ladadele

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 7618 of 1998

BETWEEN: TREVOR GROENEVELD

APPLICANT AND: SEOVIC CIVIL ENGINEERING PTY LTD RESPONDENT JUDGE: THE HON JUSTICE MARCUS EINFELD DATE: 6 OCTOBER 1998 PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This case does not require or deserve a lengthy judgment, and I do not propose to give one.

If necessary, at a later time I shall supplement it with the detailed facts and dates, but they are well set out in the affidavits and submissions and it is not necessary to repeat them. All I need say now is that by consent orders made in this Court on 12 October 1995, judgment for a debt of $120,000 was ordered in favour of the present respondent against the present

applicant. The consent orders made provision for payment of the debt by instalments.

In many instalment programs, a default in the payment of instalments represents an automatic termination of the instalment program and the reinstatement of the original sometimes much larger debt. In contrast to them, a feature of this instalment regime was that the debtor, the present applicant, was given a second chance to remedy a default because there was a provision that where there was a default in any instalment payment, the respondent would

give written notice of the default to the applicant.

The relevant clause in the terms of settlement included, in clause 5(a), a sentence which says

- and J do not quote it in full:

(a) Upon default - the applicant will give written notice of the default to the second respondent. Service of such notice will be deemed to have

been effected if sent to or left at...

-2-

one of three addresses set out. The references to the applicant and second respondent are a reference to the present respondent and the present applicant respectively. The clause went