Integrated Growth Solutions Pty Limited v Latesha Elizabeth Campbell (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 765

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Integrated Growth Solutions Pty Limited v Latesha Elizabeth Campbell (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 765 Hearing dates: 12 June 2015 Date of orders: 12 June 2015 Decision date: 12 June 2015 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Duty List Before: Kunc J Decision: Application to set aside judgment refused Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Amending, varying and setting aside – Setting aside judgment entered in absence of party – No issue of principle – UCPR Part 36 r 36.16(2)(b) Legislation Cited: UCPR Part 36 r 36.16(2)(b) Cases Cited: Northey v Bega Shire Council [2012] NSWCA 28 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Integrated Growth Solutions Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Latesha Elizabeth Campbell (Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

C. Robinson (Plaintiff) L. Campbell (in person)

Solicitors: A & J Montgomery Legal (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2014/84779 Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application brought by the defendant, Ms Campbell, by notice of motion filed 28 May 2015 to set aside a judgment entered against her by Stevenson J on 29 April 2015. That judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff, Integrated Growth Solutions Pty Ltd ("IGS"). For the reasons which follow, Ms Campbell's notice of motion will be dismissed with costs. 2. The evidence on the motion primarily consisted of Ms Campbell's affidavit sworn on 28 May 2015. Ms Campbell appeared, without objection by IGS, with the assistance of her husband, Mr Helal Safi, who spoke on Ms Campbell's behalf. Mr C Robinson of Counsel appeared for IGS. 3. In addition to Ms Campbell's affidavit, Mr Safi provided to the Court what I might, without any disrespect, describe as an undifferentiated bundle of material comprising trust account statements, affidavits, email and other correspondence which he said was material which, if the judgment were to be set aside, was evidence Ms Campbell would wish the Court to take into account on any new hearing of the proceedings against her. Mr Safi also suggested that I should review the transcript of what occurred before Stevenson J on 29 April 2015. Mr Robinson did not object to my doing so. 4. Furthermore, I indicated to the parties that, unless anyone objected, I would also review and take into account the entirety of the material on the Court file in order, as best possible, to understand the history of these proceedings. Neither party objected to that course and I have reviewed the Court's file over the lunch adjournment.