Wichman v Pepper Finance Corporation Limited

Background facts

1. On the application for a stay and leave to appeal before Meagher JA the respondent read the affidavit of Richard Joel Lewin, affirmed on 5 June 2019. That affidavit and the documents attached as an exhibit demonstrate: 1. By a loan agreement dated 15 June 2015, Pepper Finance agreed to advance $330,860 to Mr Wichman. That loan was to be secured by a registered first mortgage over the Horsley property. The loan agreement was signed by Mr Wichman on 15 June 2015. It contains a certificate signed by Mr Wichman stating that on the same day he obtained legal advice from a Mr Ben Pike of DGB Lawyers as to the nature and effect of that document which included the mortgage; 2. The loan agreement records that the purpose of the loan was to refinance an existing housing loan, that the security was to be a registered first mortgage over the Horsley property, and that on settlement funds were to be paid in part to the Illawarra Mutual Building Society, in an amount of $173,942, with the balance, $149,893, to be paid to Dallas Wichman. On settlement Dallas Wichman's existing interest in the property was to be transferred to Mr Wichman, who as sole owner would mortgage the property to Pepper Finance; 3. The mortgage records that it was also signed by Mr Wichman in the presence of Mr Pike and recites in the passage above Mr Wichman's signature that Pepper Finance had agreed to lend the amount of $330,860 to him, or at his request. It is then apparent from the copy of the certificate of title issued on 4 July 2015 that the relevant interest in the land was transferred to Mr Wichman and that the mortgage was granted to the respondent; 4. On 24 July 2018, the respondent commenced proceedings against Mr Wichman for possession of the Horsley property and for judgment for a money sum, relying on a default under the loan agreement, being a failure to make a repayment or repayments due in or before May 2018. The fact that such a payment was not made is not contested, and the reasons given for Mr Wichman not doing so include the respondent's failure to respond to a series of requests in a letter written to the chief executive officer of the respondent in August 2018; 5. The respondent's statement of claim was served in accordance with an order for substituted service made on 26 September 2018. On 27 November 2018 the respondent obtained default judgment against Mr Wichman for possession of the land and for a money amount of $344,112. It then sought and obtained, on 2 January 2019, the issue of a writ of possession of the land; 6. At that point, and after receiving a notice to vacate the property dated 11 January 2019, Mr Wichman appeared in the proceedings. On 19 February 2019, he filed a motion for a stay of execution of the writ and an order that the default judgment be vacated; 7. After a short hearing before Davies J on 20 February 2019, that motion was adjourned for directions on 20 March 2019, further adjourned to 15 May 2019 and on that day fixed for hearing on 14 June 2019, when the motion was dismissed by Registrar Bradford; 8. Neither the Registrar's reasons nor any transcript of the proceedings before the Registrar was made available to the Court. It is common ground that the Registrar gave reasons for his order dismissing Mr Wichman's motion; 9. In the period up to 23 March 2019 the respondent agreed to a stay of execution of the writ to permit a complaint made by Mr Wichman to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to be dealt with. During the same period Mr Wichman sought the assistance of the Wollongong Legal Aid Office, although its instructions appear to have been withdrawn after a period of one or two weeks; 10. On 5 August 2019, Mr Wichman filed a second notice of motion in response to a further notice from the sheriff's office advising that it proposed to evict the occupants of the property on 8 August 2019. That motion challenged the decision of Registrar Bradford and sought a stay of the writ of possession.

Proceedings before the primary judge

1. The argument before Rothman J is sufficiently recorded in his Honour's final reasons. At [12] he records: "It is unnecessary to go to the merits of the application that was originally dealt with by the Registrar. Essentially, as I understand it, from the submission of the applicant, the applicant argues that the Court can only exercise jurisdiction en banc, and there has to be a panel of judges that exercises jurisdiction."
2. Rothman J rejected that argument, which was the only argument put to his Honour, as to why the Registrar allegedly erred in rejecting his earlier motion. Accordingly Rothman J dismissed the motion dated 5 August 2019.

Application for leave to appeal to this Court

1. In support of his application for leave to appeal, Mr Wichman relied on the three affidavits filed in the proceedings below, as well as his short affidavit filed in this Court on 7 August 2019 which states: "I am the deponent. Let it be known, that I was not given Due Process and the judge was Bias. The matter could not be heard. He would not confirm a sworn Oath, or a Bond."
2. The content of Mr Wichman's argument may be gleaned from his written submissions dated 11 November 2019. In those submissions, Mr Wichman asserts that: "[Registrar] Bradford, [Justices] Rothman and Meagher, plus those involved with the Default Judgement, have denied me Substantial Due Process and have acted in Bias. They have with intent, clearly violated the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) by si[t]ting as single judges over me without my consent and therefore their judgements are Null and Void. None of these men have disclosed whether they have sworn an oath of Office to the Commonwealth, the Queen of England and the Crown. Bradford and Rothman refused to answer my question to them on that point as to whether they had sworn Oaths. All have yet to show their Oath of Office providing valid proof that they are qualified to sit in judgement in these matters. All have wilfully acted outside the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) s.80 by firstly hearing this matter as single 'judges'. … Where legislation and laws are not consistent with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), the Constitution always prevails. Acting in violation of the Constitution is a criminal act of Treason. … As I understand it, an order by a single magistrate or judge, is not a judiciary order. It is illegal, being a violation of Common Law in the Criminal Code Act 1995 Sect.268/10. Also it is my understanding that U.C.P.R. are in direct conflict with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), s. 109 and the Acts Interpretation Act 15A. As I understand it, there has not been any referendum validating U.C.P.R. There are rules that I may not be aware of, or have chosen not to consent to regarding this matter. As I have stated on the Public Record many times during this matter, I am not a corporate entity, I am not a government employee, I am not a signed up member of the law society, but a flesh and blood sentient being, standing on the Land under the Law of the Land, reserving all rights at all times, and without prejudice. … Perjured affidavits stating that I have been loaned an amount by Legal Tender, and that I have been personally served with a statement of claim, and other documents, have been produced to the court to enable the 'Default Judgement'. To support their claim, counsel for Pepper Finance have presented an Electronic Counterfeit copy of the alleged loan document to the court. They have not produced a valid signed Loan Contract to the court as evidence. I contend that they are not in receipt or ownership of an alleged 'loan' agreement, and are without Standing. Their counsel have stated that I am unable to produce evidence of such, nor of the funding details. This is a nonsense argument as they refuse to provide any information, apart from the Electronic Counterfeit. … Additionally and importantly, the registrar and judges in this matter, have acted without my consent. They have acted ultra vires over reaching their jurisdiction, and acting in private capacities. As such the Default Judgement and all subsequent judgements made in this matter, are null and void. I have not given my consent to have my rights violated at any point during this matter. As I understand it, any contract to perform is null and void."
3. The submissions conclude: "My property has been trespassed and interfered with and fraudulently and unlawfully stolen and removed without my consent. I require the following Remedy for Harm done. My property and all personal possessions returned to me within 28 days. Damages of eight times the amount claimed by Pepper Finance Corporation. I require costs of $230,000. I reserve my rights to further damages claims."
4. As Meagher JA earlier explained, Mr Wichman's submissions make a number of assertions about the content and application of Australian common law and statutory law in language which is strikingly similar to that described in the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, as "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument": see also K Sheridan v Colin Biggers & Paisley [2019] NSWSC 528 at [10] per Black J.
5. The assertions made in those affidavits include: 1. That Mr Wichman is not bound by any law, statutory or otherwise, unless he has personally consented to it. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of his affidavit of 5 August 2019 say: "Be it known, as always, One [Mr Wichman] stands in Common Law as a flesh and blood man standing on the land, reserving both One's Common Law of England rights and Unalienable rights. One reserves the rights of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law, the right by any claim to heard by jury in a court of record according to the Common Law of England and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (U.K.) 1901. Be it known, One is also free from standing under any statutes, codes, ordinances, or rules conflicting with the Common Law of England and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (U.K.) 1901. and those to which One does not consent to." 1. That Mr Wichman does not recognise the authority or jurisdiction or judgment of a registrar or single judge of the Supreme Court, and also, it would seem, of a judgment of any Court applying any law to which he has not consented. Paragraph 5 of his affidavit of 29 May 2019 and paragraph 6 of his affidavit of 5 August 2019 say, respectively: "Be it known, One does not understand nor does One recognise the authority, jurisdiction or judgement made by a single judge. One man cannot stand in judgement over another. One does not understand nor does One recognise a 'default judgement'. One understands that both violate natural Unalienable Rights, and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900, which is the foundational legal document for British colony Law in Australia. "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury…" Ref: Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 Sect. 80. "No man can legally be bound by judgement given behind his back and without opportunity of being heard." Ref: Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1901 Quick & Garran P.614 Sect. 206." "Be it known, to all governments, government and public officials, courts and other parties, that One is a natural, free born, free man, self-governing, without subjects. One is neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to One." 1. In his submissions filed 11 November 2019, Mr Wichman "rebut[s] the suggestion" that he has challenged the validity of the Supreme Court. He says that he has simply challenged "Bradford, Rothman and Meagher's personal authority as single judges in this matter under the Supreme Court". 2. That Mr Wichman does not accept that he is bound by the default judgments or the subsequent orders dismissing his applications, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit of 29 May 2019. Paragraph 6 of his affidavit of 29 May 2019 reads: "Be it known, One understands that default judgements are also a violation of the Common Law as set out in the Criminal Code Act 1995 Sect. 268/10." 1. That Mr Wichman is not bound by the loan agreement. In this respect paragraphs 8 and 9 of his affidavit of 5 August 2019 say: "Be it known as such, One understands the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to One, and are null and void. Be it known any such participation does not constitute "acceptance" in contract law, because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid "offer", and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion, under contract law. Without a valid offer, acceptance and consideration, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds", and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed "contract" is therefore void, ad intio."

Consideration

1. For leave to appeal to be granted an application must raise a question of principle, a question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice that has occurred by reason of error in the judgment, going beyond what is merely arguable: The Age Co Ltd v Liu [2013] NSWCA 26 at [13].
2. The suggestions that Rothman J was biased and that Mr Wichman was not given an opportunity to be heard are not supported by a fair reading of the transcript of the proceedings before his Honour. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is any arguable basis for his claim of bias.
3. The submissions made by Mr Wichman that the Registrar and Rothman J lacked jurisdiction are not reasonably arguable. No basis for appellate review, such as an error of principle which, if uncorrected, will result in substantial injustice, has been demonstrated: Collier v Lancer (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 186 at [7]-[8].
4. No arguable grounds have been identified which would justify the setting aside of the underlying default judgment and writ of execution. Despite being given ample opportunity, Mr Wichman has not filed or otherwise produced any proposed defence or cross‑claim dealing with the underlying claims for the money judgment and for possession. Except for some very uncertain and unclear references, there was no attempt made to identify such a defence. To the extent that we are able to identify separate claims advanced by Mr Wichman we conclude as follows: 1. To the extent that Mr Wichman complains that he had not properly been served with the court documents leading to the issue of the notice to vacate in January 2019, no reason has been shown to doubt that an order for substituted service was made and that service of all of the relevant documents was made in accordance with that order; 2. To the extent that Mr Wichman complains about the legality and efficacy of the loan agreement and mortgage, no arguable reason has been advanced for the proposition that the loan agreement was unenforceable or liable to be set aside. The suggestion that the loan documentation is an "Electronic Counterfeit copy" of the loan document signed by Mr Wichman does not raise any arguable basis to think that an injustice has occurred. The suggestion by Mr Wichman that the "securitisation" of the loan by the lender (for which there is no evidence) was sufficient to constitute the repayment by Mr Wichman of the loan is not reasonably arguable. There is in any event no evidence supporting the contention; 3. To the extent that Mr Wichman complains that the relevant advances were not made by the funder in accordance with the terms of that agreement as any advances made were not in "legal tender", that submission was correctly described by Meagher JA as an example of a "pseudolegal commercial argument" which makes no sense. No reasonably arguable error has been identified.
5. Leave to appeal must be refused.

Orders

1. For the foregoing reasons the Court made the following orders on 5 December 2019: 1. Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; 2. The applicant to pay the costs of the respondent.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 December 2019