Federal Court of Australia

Richardson v Credit One Equipment Finance Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1662

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The interlocutory application and two accompanying affidavits lodged by the Respondent on 2 November 2026 (application for summary judgment) be accepted for filing.

2.    Orders 1 to 3 of the Orders made on 13 October 2026 be vacated and replaced with the following:

1.     By 4.00pm on 9 November 2026, the Respondent is to serve any application for summary judgment under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (application for summary judgment).

2.     By 4.00pm on 30 November 2026, the Applicant is to file and serve any affidavit material in opposition to the application for summary judgment.

3.     By 4.00pm on 14 December 2026, the Respondent is to file and serve any affidavit material in reply to the affidavit material referred to in paragraph 2 above.

3.    The Respondent bear its own costs of and incidental to the preparation and filing of the application for summary judgment up until and including 6 November 2026, and its costs of complying with the Orders made on 3 November 2026.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLLIER J:

1    On 13 October 2026 the Court made the following Case Management Orders in proceeding QUD109/2026:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.     By 4.00pm on 30 October 2026, the Respondent is to file and serve any application for summary judgment under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (application for summary judgment).

2.     By 4.00pm on 20 November 2026, the Applicant is to file and serve any affidavit material in opposition to the application for summary judgment.

3.     By 4.00pm on 4 December 2026, the Respondent is to file and serve any affidavit material in reply to the affidavit material referred to in paragraph 2 above.

4.     By 4.00pm on 2 February 2027, the Respondent is to file and serve written submissions of no more than 10 pages in respect of the application for summary judgment.

5.     By 4.00pm on 12 February 2027, the Applicant is to file and serve written submissions of no more than 10 pages in respect of the application for summary judgment.

6.     The application for summary judgment be listed for hearing for one and a half days at 10.15am (Brisbane time) on 16 February 2027.

7.     There be liberty to apply.

8.     Costs be reserved.

2    The applicant in proceeding QUD109/2026 is Mr Gary Richardson and the respondent is Credit One Equipment Finance Pty Ltd.

3    The Case Management Orders were made following a case management hearing with the parties in the afternoon of 12 October 2026. At that case management hearing, Mr Richardson represented himself while Credit One was represented by Counsel and solicitors.

4    There was no dispute at the case management hearing that Credit One could meet the deadline of 30 October 2026 for the filing of an application for summary judgment as contemplated by Order 1 of the Case Management Orders. In fact, in their draft minutes of orders provided to my chambers in advance of the case management hearing, the respondent proposed an order contemplating the filing of an application for summary judgment by 21 October 2026.

5    At 4.08pm on 30 October 2026 Mr Richardson sent the following email to the Queensland Registry:

Subject: QUD109/2026 Richardson v Credit One Equipment Finance Pty Ltd – Order 1 of 13 October 2026

Dear Associate,

I am the self-represented Applicant in this proceeding. I write, with a copy to the Respondent's solicitors, about Order 1 of the orders made by her Honour on 13 October 2026.

Order 1 required the Respondent to file and serve any application for summary judgment under r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 4.00pm on 30 October 2026. As at 4.08pm, no application has been served on me, and none appears on the Commonwealth Courts Portal file for this proceeding.

The Respondent has not brought a summary judgment application within the time ordered. I respectfully ask, under the liberty to apply in Order 7, that:

1. Orders 2 to 6 of the orders of 13 October 2026, and the hearing listed for 16 and 17 February 2027, be vacated; and

2. the proceeding be relisted for a case management hearing at a convenient date, so that directions can be made for the progress of the matter, including discovery and the outstanding questions of amendment and joinder.

I would be grateful if the Respondent's solicitors would confirm, by reply to all, whether they agree to these orders.

Yours faithfully,

6    At 4.31pm on 30 October 2026 Credit One’s legal representatives sent the following email to the Queensland Registry:

Dear Associate,

We refer to the email below from Mr Richardson and to the order made on 13 October 2026.

Our client does not agree to the orders proposed by Mr Richardson. We are presently working with our client to finalise the application and supporting affidavit material and expect to file that with the Court very shortly. Once accepted for filing, those documents will be served on Mr Richardson.

In the meantime, we apologise for the short delay.

Yours faithfully,

7    At 4.43pm on 30 October 2026 Mr Richardson sent a further email to the Queensland Registry. Mr Richardson, in summary, contended that:

    the respondent is out of time for filing an application for summary judgment;

    this is not the first time that the respondent has attempted to file materials out of time;

    the respondent has not applied to the Court for an extension of time;

    he does not consent to the respondent filing an application out of time; and

    if the respondent wishes to press an application for summary judgment, the respondent should be required to file a formal application for an extension of time.

8    At 12.32pm on 2 November 2026, Credit One lodged an application for summary judgment accompanied by two affidavits. I understand that this lodgment was not immediately accepted for filing by the Registry.

9    On 3 November 2026, I made the following further Case Management Orders in QUD109/2026:

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

•    Order 1 of the Orders of 13 October 2026 permitted the respondent to file any application for summary judgment under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 4.00pm on 30 October 2026.

•    The respondent did not file an application for summary judgment pursuant to Order 1 of the Orders of 13 October 2026.

AND THE COURT FURTHER NOTES THAT:

•    The respondent has sought to file an application for summary judgment on 2 November 2026 and to vary other timetabling Orders of 13 October 2026.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    By 4.00pm (Brisbane time) on Thursday 5 November 2026, the parties file and serve written submissions, limited to 2 pages, as to:

(a)     whether the respondent’s application for summary judgment lodged on 2 November 2026 be accepted for filing;

(b)     whether the Orders of 13 October 2026 be varied; and

(c)     costs of and incidental to the preparation and filing of the summary dismissal application.

2.     The issues of

(a)     whether the respondent’s application for summary judgment lodged on 2 November 2026 be accepted for filing;

(b)     whether the Orders of 13 October 2026 be varied; and

(c)     costs of and incidental to the preparation and filing of the summary dismissal application

be determined on the papers following compliance by the parties with Order 1 of these Orders.

Parties’ Submissions

10    Both parties filed submissions as required by the further Case Management Orders.

11    In summary, Credit One submitted:

    As explained in an affidavit of a solicitor acting for Credit One, the respondent’s delay in lodging the application for summary judgment was attributable to the discovery, on the morning of 30 October 2026, that the transcript of an audio recording that was to be exhibited to the supporting evidence contained privileged material.

    The Court should accept the application for summary judgment for filing because the delay was very short and has been reasonably explained, the application raised a genuine question, and Mr Richardson would suffer no prejudice as a result of the delay. The Court should extend time for Credit One to serve the application on Mr Richardson until one business day after the application is accepted by the Registry.

    The application for summary judgment is listed for hearing on 16 and 17 February 2027, more than 3 months in the future, and Credit One has no difficulty accommodating a 7-day extension of time for timetabling due dates before the end of 2026. Credit One does not require an extension of time for timetabling due dates in 2027.

    Mr Richardson would suffer no prejudice by the delay, and, by requiring Credit One to make a formal application for an extension of time, is acting in a way which is not consistent with s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

    The appropriate orders for costs are that Credit One bears its own costs of complying with the further Case Management Orders made on 3 November 2026, and that the costs of the preparation and filing of the application for summary judgment be otherwise reserved.

12    Mr Richardson submitted, in summary:

    Credit One did not seek an extension of time before 4.00pm on 30 October 2026, and did not explain the reasons for its late lodgment until 5 November 2026, after this Court ordered submissions to be filed.

    The explanation offered by Credit One did not explain why the privilege issue was only discovered on 30 October 2026 when the Case Management Orders of 13 October 2026 allowed Credit One 17 days to prepare its application.

    Mr Richardson was prejudiced because the delay in this matter meant that he would have less time to respond to Credit One’s application, and because the Court had deferred some of Mr Richardson’s own applications until after the determination of the application for summary judgment.

    To the extent that Credit One relied on the transcript of an audio recording, Mr Richardson required a copy of that recording and time to check it.

    Mr Richardson’s conduct, in declining to consent to Credit One’s non-compliance with a Court Order in the absence of any explanation, was not inconsistent with s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

    The Court should refuse the extension of time and decline to accept Credit One’s application lodged on 2 November 2026. If the Court is minded to extend time, it should do so with commensurate extensions to timetabling due dates before the end of 2026, and with an order that Credit One provide a copy of the audio recording.

    Credit One should bear its own costs of the late filing, of its application for an extension and of complying with the Orders of 3 November 2026.

Consideration

Extension of time

13    The Court has the power to grant an extension of time in relation to the filing of an application for summary judgment, even in the absence of a formal application for an extension of time. As rr 1.32, 1.39 and 1.40 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) provide:

1.32 Court may make any order it considers appropriate in the interests of justice

The Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of justice.

…

1.39 Extension and shortening of time

The Court may extend or shorten a time fixed by these Rules or by order of the Court:

 (a)     before or after the time expires; and

 (b)     whether or not an application for extension is made before the time expires.

1.40 Exercise of Court’s power

The Court may, at any stage of the proceeding, exercise a power mentioned in these Rules in the proceeding:

 (a)     on its own initiative; or

 (b)     on the application of a party, or a person who has a sufficient interest in the proceeding.

14    In the present circumstances I am prepared to treat the submissions of Credit One as constituting an application for an extension of time to comply with Order 1 of the Case Management Orders.

15    In Nassif v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 466 at [44], citing Ann Street Mezzanine v Beck [2011] FCA 1212 at [6] and Skinner v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] FCA 1194 at [11], the Court determined that in exercising its discretion under r 1.39, the Court must consider all the circumstances including:

(1)    the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth);

(2)    the nature of the order not complied with;

(3)    in the event of non-compliance, whether the order was made by consent;

(4)    the seriousness of the non-compliance;

(5)    the reasons for the non-compliance;

(6)    the history of the proceeding, including:

(a)    the party’s previous delays or non-compliances; and

(b)    indications that the party is unable or unwilling to cooperate with the Court and the other side to have the matter ready for trial within an acceptable period;

(7)    any prejudice to the applicant arising from dismissal of the proceeding; and

(8)    any prejudice to the respondent from permitting the proceeding to continue.

16    On the materials before me, I am satisfied that the application for summary judgment and accompanying affidavits lodged by Credit One on 2 November 2026 should be accepted for filing by the Federal Court Registry.

17    Order 1 of the Case Management Orders is in the nature of a timetabling order, and was not made by consent. There was no dispute at the case management hearing that Credit One could meet the deadline of 30 October 2026 for filing an application for summary judgment. Credit One’s non-compliance, being the late lodgment of the contemplated application by one business day, is not serious. I also note that Credit One has offered an explanation for its non-compliance, referable to the discovery of an issue on the morning of 30 October 2026 in the application’s supporting materials that might amount to a waiver of legal professional privilege.

18    Although it would have been desirable for the Court to be informed of this development on 30 October 2026, I accept that this was an issue that had to be resolved before the application can be filed.

19    It is true that Credit One had, on one previous occasion, filed documents in proceeding QUD109/2026 after a deadline fixed by the Court. Specifically, the Orders of 10 August 2026 required Credit One to file a list of documents for the purposes of discovery by 11 September 2026, but that was not lodged until 13 September 2026. Nevertheless, there is no indication that Credit One is unable or unwilling to cooperate with the Court or Mr Richardson to have the application for summary judgment ready for trial within an acceptable period.

20    Credit One’s application – being an application for summary judgment on grounds of abuse of process – has the potential of ending this proceeding early should Credit One be successful. It would thus be prejudicial to Credit One for it to be denied the opportunity to press it. With appropriate adjustments to timetabling orders, I am satisfied that there is minimal prejudice to Mr Richardson arising out of Credit One’s late lodgment of the application.

21    I do not accept Mr Richardson’s submission that, if the Court is minded to accept the application for summary judgment for filing, it should do so on the proviso that Credit One provides Mr Richardson with a copy of an audio recording of a meeting out of which an issue of privilege claimed by Credit One had apparently arisen, redacted to the same extent as the transcript if Credit One wishes to maintain privilege. I note at this stage that the evidence of Credit One’s solicitor is that Mr Richardson was present at the relevant meeting.

22    As matters presently stand, I am not minded to order that an audio recording in the possession of Credit One be provided to Mr Richardson. If for any reason Mr Richardson takes issue with evidence on which Credit One ultimately relies in its application for summary judgment, it is open to Mr Richardson to make appropriate submissions at the hearing of the application. The existence of such evidence is not, however, relevant to whether Credit One ought to be allowed to file an application for summary judgment.

23    Overall, I am satisfied that allowing the application for summary judgment to be accepted for filing is consistent with the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to facilitate the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.

Consequential variations to timetabling orders

24    Regrettably, the late lodgment of the application for summary judgment, and the subsequent consideration of this issue by the Court, has caused an approximately one-week delay in the matter’s progression. I expect the application for summary judgment to be added to the Court file by the Registry on 6 November 2026, shortly after the delivery of these reasons. I further consider it appropriate to allow Credit One to serve Mr Richardson by the close of the next business day, which falls on 9 November 2026.

25    Timetabling Orders referable to Credit One’s application for summary judgment, presently contained in the Case Management Orders of 13 October 2026, span the end-of-year period. I consider it appropriate to extend all timetabling due dates before the end of 2026 by six business days. Noting that the first timetabling due date in the new year is 2 February 2027, I will not make any changes to any of the 2027 due dates.

Costs

26    The final question for the Court is the question of costs, referable to:

(1)    the determination of the issues presently before the Court; and

(2)    the preparation and filing of the application for summary judgment.

27    The Court has a general discretion to make orders regarding the costs of any part of a proceeding, at any stage in the proceeding: s 43 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). However, as Mr Richardson is a litigant in person, he cannot be awarded costs: Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 409, Australian Super Pty Ltd v Woodward [2009] FCAFC 168 at [60]-[61].

28    Plainly, the necessity of preparing and filing written submissions and the need for a judgment dealing with the issues presently before the Court would not have arisen but for Credit One lodging, out of time, its application for summary judgment. Again I note Credit One’s explanation as to why it did not file its application for summary judgment by 4.00pm on 30 October 2026. I further note, however, that Credit One could have contacted the Court (and Mr Richardson) before the cutoff time to seek a short extension of time, in order to prevent Credit One being in default of the Case Management Orders.

29    While costs orders in respect of proceedings instituted under Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are made only in limited circumstances (s 1317AH), in the circumstances I consider that Mr Richardson should not be at risk of bearing costs of Credit One related to Credit One’s default in compliance with the Case Management Orders. To avoid any future uncertainty, I order Credit One to bear its own costs of and incidental to the preparation and filing of the application for summary judgment up until and including 6 November 2026, and its costs of complying with the Orders made on 3 November 2026.

Associate:

Dated:    6 November 2026