AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED -v- LANGER [2025] WASC 549 | Case summary

For these reasons, I was satisfied that orders should be made extending the time for bringing the Application to the date of filing, 22 July 2025, entering summary judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for the amount owing under the Second Loan Agreement and First Mortgage, and requiring the first defendant to deliver up vacant possession of the First Property to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought an order that the first defendant deliver up possession of the first property within 28 days. The first defendant sought a period of 90 days. For the reasons given at the hearing of the Application, and taking into account the upcoming holiday period, I made an order that the first defendant deliver up vacant possession of the First Property to the plaintiff by 22 January 2026.

Supreme Court of WA|2025-12-19

For the reasons given, leave should be, and is, granted to the plaintiff to bring the Application out of time. I am also satisfied on the evidence before me, as outlined, that the plaintiff has complied with the other procedural requirements for an application for summary judgment, and made out a prima facie case that it is entitled to possession of the First Property under the terms of the Second Loan Agreement and First Mortgage.
Ms Guy and Mr Tongra have sworn affidavits deposing to the facts verifying the plaintiff's claim, as outlined. Mr Tongra deposes in the Tongra Affidavit, to his belief, on behalf of the plaintiff, that there is no defence to the claim.
In my view, the plaintiff's case and its entitlement to the orders sought are clearly established on the evidence before the court. The defendants defaulted under the terms of the Loan Agreements and Mortgages by failing to make repayments when they were due and payable. Default Notices have been served on the defendants. Relevantly, the default in relation to the Second Agreement and First Mortgage were and have not been remedied and the amount owing under the First Mortgage has increased.
The first defendant has not discharged his evidentiary burden of establishing that there is an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim, an issue or question to be tried, or some other reason why there ought to be a trial of the action.
The concerns expressed by the first defendant in relation to the calculation of the interest component of the amount claimed do not give rise to an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim. For the reasons outlined, by operation of cl 10.1 of the Memorandum of Provisions, the Fifth Guy Affidavit is conclusive evidence of the amount outstanding. The first defendant has not adduced any evidence that the amount stated to be due and owing is incorrect.
I recognise that summary judgment should only be awarded in the clearest of cases. For the reasons stated, I was satisfied, on the evidence before the court, that this is such a case and that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment.

For these reasons, I was satisfied that orders should be made extending the time for bringing the Application to the date of filing, 22 July 2025, entering summary judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for the amount owing under the Second Loan Agreement and First Mortgage, and requiring the first defendant to deliver up vacant possession of the First Property to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought an order that the first defendant deliver up possession of the first property within 28 days. The first defendant sought a period of 90 days. For the reasons given at the hearing of the Application, and taking into account the upcoming holiday period, I made an order that the first defendant deliver up vacant possession of the First Property to the plaintiff by 22 January 2026.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[2] Cologna Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the P. and D. Panizza Family Trust v Caranna [2023] WASC 368 (Cologna Investments) [27] (Archer J). See also Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Shada Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 200 [12] - [14], [30] - [31] (Gething J).

[4] Cologna Investments [26], [27.2]. See also Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron (No 11) [2016] WASC 235 [4] (Chaney J); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Lafferty [2017] WASC 257 (Lafferty) [40] ‑ [41] (Tottle J); Westpac Banking Corporation v Anderson [2017] WASC 106 (Westpac Banking) [38] (Pritchard J).

[6] Sutton Investments Pty Ltd v Realistic Investments Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 14 [24].

[7] Westpac Banking [53] - [54], [103]. See also Lafferty [54] and the authorities referred to.

[8] Affidavit of Chirag Tongra affirmed 29 May 2025 (Tongra Affidavit) [7(a)(i)], 'B', pages 11 - 18 (First Loan Agreement).

[9] Tongra Affidavit [7(a)(ii)], 'B', pages 19 - 25 (Second Loan Agreement).

[10] Tongra Affidavit [7(a)(iii)], 'B', pages 26 - 33 (Third Loan Agreement).

[12] Tongra Affidavit [6], 'B', pages 34 - 69 (Terms and Conditions).

[13] Tongra Affidavit [7(d)(i)(A)], [13], 'C', pages 70 - 73.

[14] Tongra Affidavit [7(d)(i)(B)], [13], 'C', pages 74 - 79.

[15] Tongra Affidavit [7(d)(ii)], [13], 'C'.

[16] Tongra Affidavit [8], [13], 'C', pages 80 - 94 (Memorandum of Provisions).

[17] Tongra Affidavit [7(c)(i)], 'B' First Loan Agreement, page 11.

[18] Tongra Affidavit [7(c)(ii)], 'B' Second Loan Agreement, page 19.

[19] Tongra Affidavit [7(c)(iii)], 'B' Third Loan Agreement, page 26.

[20] Tongra Affidavit [7(e)], 'B' Terms and Conditions (General Conditions), cl 10; [9(a)], 'C' Memorandum of Provisions, cl 7.1.

[21] Tongra Affidavit [7(f)], 'B' Terms and Conditions (General Conditions), cl 10; [9(b)(i)], 'C' Memorandum of Provisions, cl 7.2.

[22] Tongra Affidavit [7(g)], 'B' Terms and Conditions (General Conditions), cl 10; [9(c)], 'C' Memorandum of Provisions, cl 7.2(iii), 7.3.

[23] Tongra Affidavit [9(b)(ii)], 'C' Memorandum of Provisions, cl 9.3.

[25] Tongra Affidavit [10]; Affidavit of Cassandra Michelle Guy sworn 22 July 2025 (First Guy Affidavit) [2] ‑ [3], 'A'.

[26] First Guy Affidavit [2] - [3], 'A'.

[28] Affidavit of Cassandra Michelle Guy sworn 9 December 2025 [2(a)].

[30] Affidavit of Cassandra Michelle Guy sworn 18 December 2025 (Fifth Guy Affidavit) [2].

[31] Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Ltd [1935] HCA 49; (1935) 53 CLR 643 (Dobbs).

[32] Collopy v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2019] WASCA 97 (Collopy) [57].

[34] Memorandum of Provisions, cl 11.1 (definition of 'ANZ appointee').

[35] George 218 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland [2015] WASC 434; (2015) 303 FLR 231 [247].

Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009

Summary judgment will be granted only when there is no real question to be tried. The power to order summary judgment is one that should be exercised with great care: Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd [1983] HCA 25; (1983) 154 CLR 87, 99. It is only the clearest of cases, when there is a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceedings if it went to trial, that summary judgment ought properly be granted: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552 [57]; Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 [46]; Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118 [24], [53] - [55].

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED -v- LANGER [2025] WASC 549 (19 December 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (30 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (7)