FARRANT -v- WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION [No 2] [2025] WASCA 53 | Case summary

The application for special leave to appeal having been refused there is no longer any foundation for the appellant's application to stay the enforcement of the primary court's orders pending the determination of the appellant's application for special leave to appeal. That conclusion is not altered by the appellant's assertion that she will be seeking reconsideration of the application for special leave to appeal. No such application has been adduced in evidence. In any event the prospects of such an application being successful are non‑existent given the High Court's determination that any appeal would have no prospects of success. The application in an appeal dated 7 January 2025 must be dismissed. It is also appropriate to revoke pars 5 and 6 of the orders of the court made 13 January 2025.
Accordingly, I now make orders that:
1. The appellant's application in an appeal dated 7 January 2025 is dismissed.
2. The orders made in pars 5 and 6 of the orders of the court made 13 January 2025 are revoked.

The appellant's email does not seek an adjournment of today's hearing. To the contrary, by referring to her affidavit and submissions as filed, the appellant evidently seeks to remind the court of those papers in the expectation that the hearing will proceed. If, contrary to my reading, the email does seek an adjournment of the hearing, it is not in the interests of justice to adjourn the hearing. There is no medical evidence to substantiate the appellant's assertion that she is not well enough to attend the hearing. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to establish a good reason for an adjournment. The prejudice to the respondent in adjournment, and the waste of the public resources of the court in adjourning the matter, outweigh any prejudice to the appellant in proceeding with the hearing of the application. Proceeding with the hearing of the application will also better achieve the goal and objects in O 1 r 4A and r 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
The papers on the application comprise the following:
1. The appellant's application in an appeal dated 7 January 2025.
2. The appellant's affidavit affirmed 7 January 2025.
3. The appellant's affidavit affirmed 23 January 2025.
4. The affidavit of the respondent's solicitor, Cassandra Michelle Guy, sworn 21 January 2025.
5. The appellant's submissions dated 23 January 2025.
6. The respondent's submissions dated 3 February 2025.
7. The appellant's speaking notes dated 4 February 2025.
In addition the court has available to it a copy of the appellant's application to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal in proceedings P2 of 2025.
The background to the dispute is provided in the reasons for decision of the primary court (Acting Master McDonald) and in the reasons for decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal from the orders of the primary court. See Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [2024] WASC 300, Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [2024] WASC 300 (S) and Farrant v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] WASCA 157. I will not repeat those matters. It suffices to say that the respondent brought mortgage recovery proceedings against the appellant. The respondent obtained summary judgment before the acting master. The acting master ordered that the appellant deliver up vacant possession of the property to the respondent. The appellant's appeal against the order for summary judgment failed.
The present application arises out of an application that the appellant made to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal from the orders of this court dismissing her appeal against the orders made by the acting master. The application for special leave to appeal is dated 6 January 2025 and is designated as proceedings P2 of 2025.
By the application in an appeal dated 7 January 2025 the appellant applied for an order as follows:

FARRANT -v- WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION [No 2] [2025] WASCA 53 (11 April 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Cases Cited (1)