Brereton (Liquidator) v Gatto, in the matter of Get Concreted Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 24 September 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] FCA 1413
• Date: 24 September 2026

Federal Court of Australia

Brereton (Liquidator) v Gatto, in the matter of Get Concreted Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 1413

ORDERS

NSD 1131 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF GET CONCRETED PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
BETWEEN:	MICHAEL BRERETON AND SEAN WENGEL AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF GET CONCRETED PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 138 261 784) First Plaintiff GET CONCRETED PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 138 261 784) Second Plaintiff
AND:	DANIEL GATTO Defendant

order made by:	JACKMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 SEPTEMBER 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), judgment be entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant as a debt due to the plaintiffs in the amount of $280,732.09, being $259,588.76 plus interest pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) at the rate set out in para 2.2 of the Interest on Judgments Practice Note dated 18 September 2017 in the amount of $21,143.33.

2. The defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings, including the interlocutory process, by way of lump sum.

3. The plaintiffs file an affidavit by 25 September 2026 in relation to the quantification of the lump sum costs order, which I will determine on the papers.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Delivered ex tempore

JACKMAN J:

1 By interlocutory process filed on 11 September 2026, the plaintiffs seek an order for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) against the defendant, Mr Daniel Gatto, for the sum of $259,588.76 (Sum), together with $21,143.33 in interest calculated on the Sum from 11 September 2025 (being the date of the first demand by the plaintiffs to Mr Gatto) pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) at the rate set out in para 2.2 of the Interest on Judgments Practice Note dated 18 September 2017.

2 Mr Gatto was the sole director of the second plaintiff, Get Concreted Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Company), from its incorporation on 13 July 2009 to the date of liquidation. On 29 July 2024, the first plaintiffs, Mr Brereton and Mr Wengel (together, Liquidators) were appointed as joint and several liquidators of the Company.

3 By originating process, the Liquidators commenced this proceeding on 26 June 2026 against Mr Gatto for a declaration that Mr Gatto breached his duty as a director to prevent the Company from incurring debts at a time when it was insolvent pursuant to s 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) and an order that Mr Gatto pay the Sum, being an amount equal to the loss suffered by creditors of the Company, pursuant to s 588M of the Act.

4 On 21 July 2026, the originating process was personally served on Mr Gatto by a process server.

5 On 6 August 2026, I made orders that the proceeding continue on pleadings. On the same date, the Liquidators filed and served the Statement of Claim.

6 On 16 September 2026, the interlocutory process was served on Mr Gatto.

7 Subrule 5.23(2)(c) of the Rules provides relevantly that where a respondent is in default, an applicant may apply to the Court, if the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings, for an order giving judgment against the respondent for the relief claimed in the statement of claim to which the Court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled.

8 The power to award default judgment is of a discretionary nature which ought to be exercised with caution, as granting such relief will award the applicants success in the proceeding without examining the merits of the claim by reference to evidence before the Court.

9 In circumstances where an application for default judgment has been made in a proceeding where the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings, the Court’s task is not to conduct a trial of the proceeding, but to determine whether the pleaded facts, if accepted, disclose a cause of action entitling the applicant to the relief sought: Scott v Khouri, In the matter of...