When a procedural right becomes a strategic own‑goal

Default judgment exists to deal efficiently with proceedings that are truly undefended. In Victoria, it is usually obtained administratively in the registry (without a hearing), based on prescribed forms and affidavits.

“Snapping on” judgment (sometimes written “snapping on judgement”) is the informal label for a plaintiff rushing to enter or seek default judgment the moment the time for appearance or defence has expired. This is especially where the plaintiff knows (or has good reason to believe) the defendant intends to defend, and does so without giving any meaningful warning. Victorian courts have long regarded that kind of ambush as bad practice and, in appropriate cases, as conduct that warrants the judgment being set aside with a costs consequence.

This post explains the concept through the current Victorian procedural framework (including the 2025 remake of the Supreme Court Rules), the leading Victorian authorities, and a few helpful interstate comparators.

The current Victorian procedural setting

Supreme Court of Victoria

As at February 2026, default judgment in the Supreme Court is governed by Order 21 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025, which commenced on 8 September 2025 and largely retained the same structure as the 2015 Rules.

Two provisions matter for “snapping on”:

• Rule 21.02 (Default of defence): if a defendant required to serve a defence does not do so within time, the plaintiff may enter or apply for judgment in accordance with Order 21 (subject to certain specialist list requirements).
• Rule 21.07 (Setting aside judgment): the Court may set aside or vary any judgment entered or given under Order 21.

A Victoria-specific procedural wrinkle: for matters in the Commercial List managed by a Commercial List Judge, the Rules note that an order of the Commercial List Judge is required before default judgment can be entered (for both default of appearance and default of defence).

Magistrates’ Court of Victoria

In the Magistrates’ Court, Order 21 of the Magistrates’ Court General Civil Procedure Rules 2020 governs “order in default of defence” processes.

The Rules provide (in substance):

• If the defendant does not give notice of defence within 21 days after service of the complaint (or other time fixed), the plaintiff may apply for an order.
• The Court may set aside or vary any order made in accordance with Order 21.

The Magistrates’ Court also explains (for lay users) that you generally apply after 21 days and you cannot apply if a defence is filed.

County Court of Victoria

The County Court has its own Order 21 regime (and its own set-aside process), but the “snapping on” concept is not unique to any one Victorian court; it is a behavioural question about how a party uses the default judgment procedure.

What does “snapping on” add to the usual default judgment story?

A default judgment may be:

• Procedurally regular (IE entered in accordance with the Rules), yet still liable to be set aside in the Court’s discretion (often requiring a prompt application, a satisfactory explanation for default, and an arguable defence); or
• Irregularly obtained (including, in some contexts, because the plaintiff acted in “bad faith” by ambushing an opponent known to be intending to defend), which can support setting aside and costs consequences.

“Snapping on” is not simply “moving quickly.” It is “moving quickly” in circumstances that look like sharp practice; for example:

• you know the defendant has a solicitor and has been communicating;
• you know a defence is being prepared or an extension has been sought; or
• you proceed to default without warning, to gain leverage or a costs advantage.

Victorian commentary drawing on Victorian authorities treats “snapping on” in that way as a serious problem because a default judgment is meant to streamline truly undefended matters, not to punish a late-but-genuine defence.

Key Victorian authorities and themes

Coburn v Brotchie (1890) 16 VLR 6

This is the Victorian “origin story” most commonly cited in discussions of snapping on. Justice Hood is repeatedly quoted as criticising the plaintiff for not communicating with the defendants’ solicitor before signing judgment, and the default judgment was set aside.

The modern takeaway is not that a plaintiff must always give advance warning in every case. It is that where you know the defendant is represented and intends to defend, professional courtesy (and, increasingly, case-management culture) matters.

Mark French v Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 36

This decision is widely relied on in Victorian practice commentary as an illustration of the risk in snapping on judgment where the plaintiff is aware of the defendant’s intention to defend, but enters default without further warning after a solicitor’s oversight. The commentary reports that the Court regarded the approach as inappropriate/bad faith in the circumstances and set the judgment aside.

(For present purposes, the important point is the principle the case is used for: knowledge of an intended defence changes the character of a “race to default”.)

Gunns Finance Pty Ltd (R & M Appntd) (In Liq) v Storey & Anor [2014] VSC 260

Victorian commentary also uses this case as a counterpoint: the Court will look closely at the circumstances to decide whether a plaintiff who entered default did so improperly. If the plaintiff was not on notice that the defendant genuinely intended to defend (or if the defendant’s conduct was equivocal), the “snapping on” criticism may have less traction.

Interstate comparators that Victorian courts and practitioners still cite

Because the “snapping on” label is informal, courts and commentators often support the underlying idea by reference to older interstate authorities:

• Bushby v Mackenzie (1919) (NSW): commonly cited for the proposition that the proper course in ordinary cases is to approach the other side first, and that rules about default should not be used merely to obtain a costs advantage.
• Gavin Boyle Constructions Pty Ltd v Fabrok Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 214 (Qld): discussed as a modern costs example—default judgment set aside, but the court declined to award the plaintiff costs because it knew the defendant denied liability and failed to check with the defendant’s solicitor before signing judgment. The decision is noted as drawing on Coburn v Brotchie and principles analogous to Victoria’s overarching-obligations culture.

The point of these comparators is consistent with the Victorian theme: default judgment is not meant to be an ambush mechanism where a defence is expected.

Practical guidance: reducing the “snapping on” risk (without surrendering your rights)

For plaintiffs (and their solicitors)

If you are entitled to default judgment under the Rules, you can apply. But if you want the judgment to stick (and you want to protect your costs position), consider:

1. Identify whether you’re “on notice” of a defence.
   Prior correspondence, an identified solicitor, draft pleadings, or an extension request are all red flags for “snapping on” arguments.
2. Give a short, clear ultimatum (and document it).
   A simple email along the lines of “If no appearance or defence is filed by 4:00pm on [date], we will request default judgment” is often the difference between “proper step” and “ambush”. (This is a practice point drawn from how the cases are discussed, rather than a black-letter rule that appears in Order 21.)
3. Be especially careful in specialist lists.
   In the Supreme Court Commercial List, the Rules themselves flag that an order of the Commercial List Judge is required before default judgment can be entered.
4. Remember that default judgment is usually a registry process, not a hearing.
   Because the Court often hasn’t “seen” the fairness context when judgment is entered, that context tends to come roaring back on a set-aside application—frequently as a costs question.

For defendants (and their solicitors)

If you are late, or a default judgment has been entered:

1. Move immediately.
   Delay is often fatal to sympathy, even where there is an arguable “snapping on” narrative.
2. File what you can, as fast as you can.
   Getting an appearance/defence (or notice of defence) on file quickly changes the dynamic and demonstrates genuine intention to defend.
3. Frame the set-aside application around both merits and fairness. If you can show the plaintiff knew you intended to defend and ambushed you, you have a stronger argument that the judgment should be set aside and that costs should follow.

Bottom line

Victoria’s rules continue to permit default judgment when time limits are missed, and the Supreme Court’s 2025 remake kept the familiar Order 21 structure.

But the “snapping on” concept is a warning: when you know a defence is intended, using default judgment as a surprise tactic can backfire—typically via a set-aside order and an adverse costs outcome—because the procedure is designed for truly undefended matters, not tactical ambush.

General information only; not legal advice.

Contact Cogent Legal for advice on this topic.