Woollard v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] NSWCA 258

Woollard v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] NSWCA 258

There are no arguable grounds of appeal warranting a stay. The evidence does not support Mr Woollard's claim that ANZ knew or suspected his signature was forged, and the primary judge’s findings were not shown to be in error. Even if partial relief were available under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), it would not entitle Mr Woollard to a stay of the execution of the judgment for possession.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory Application in Court of Appeal Pending Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Stay of execution refused. Notice of motion largely dismissed. Costs awarded as specified.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'judgments and Orders' 'possession of Property' 'guarantee Liability' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'contracts Review Act']
['practice and Procedure'] ['stay of Execution' 'judgments and Orders' 'possession of Property' 'guarantee Liability' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'contracts Review Act']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory Application in Court of Appeal Pending Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there are arguable grounds of appeal justifying a stay of execution of the judgment for possession' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding ANZ could rely on statutory assumptions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) given the issue of forged signature' 'Whether the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) or unconscionable conduct should entitle Mr Woollard to relief']

Ratio Decidendi

There are no arguable grounds of appeal warranting a stay. The evidence does not support Mr Woollard's claim that ANZ knew or suspected his signature was forged, and the primary judge’s findings were not shown to be in error. Even if partial relief were available under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), it would not entitle Mr Woollard to a stay of the execution of the judgment for possession.

Court Disposition

Stay of execution refused. Notice of motion largely dismissed. Costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss paragraph 2 of the notice of motion filed on 7 September 2016.' "Appellant/applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of that motion." "Note the second respondent's undertaking not to enforce any judgment or order in his favour made on 20 May 2016 until the final determination of the appeal." 'No order...