Advise on an application for orders when a party is in default
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- From the orders and the court record supplied, record which act, time, order, hearing or want of diligence is said to be the default, and which order under rule 5.23 is proposed. Do not decide that the party is in default and do not draft the application.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether rule 5.22 is met and which order under rule 5.23, if any, should be sought. The note to rule 5.23 says an order or judgment under the Division may be set aside or varied. The lawyer reads the provision that deals with setting aside before advising on that step. The lawyer writes the application.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. From the orders and the court record supplied, record which act, time, order, hearing or want of diligence is said to be the default, and which order under rule 5.23 is proposed. Do not decide that the party is in default and do not draft the application. The tool writes nothing into the document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Match the alleged default to a paragraph of rule 5.22.
- Match the order sought to a paragraph of rule 5.23(1) or 5.23(2).
- If judgment for a debt is sought, confirm the claim is for a debt or liquidated damages, which is the limit in rule 5.23(2)(b).
- Confirm the set-aside note is marked for the lawyer to read, and that no test for setting aside has been stated.
Sources
- Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 5.22 · 2026-10-22
- Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 5.23 · 2026-10-22
These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.