ROWETT v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION [1993] NSWCA 240

ROWETT v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION [1993] NSWCA 240

The proposed appeal against the possession judgment had no appreciable prospects of success and conditions for receiving fresh evidence were not satisfied; procedural defaults could not be cured where appeal would be futile, and the judge’s role regarding a self-represented litigant did not require special assistance beyond ensuring fairness.

Parties
First Claimant: Michele Rowett; Second Claimant: Joy Rowett; Opponent/respondent: Westpac Banking Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 1993
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution / Court of Appeal Decision on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for stay of execution refused; time for appealing extended; claimants to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Mortgage Enforcement, Self Represented Litigants
Civil Procedure Property Law Extension of Time to Appeal Stay of Execution Mortgage Enforcement Self Represented Litigants

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michele Rowett

First Claimant

Joy Rowett

Second Claimant

Westpac Banking Corporation

Opponent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution / Court of Appeal Decision on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time to appeal against judgment should be extended
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution on the writ of possession should be granted
  3. 3 Reception of fresh evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal against the possession judgment had no appreciable prospects of success and conditions for receiving fresh evidence were not satisfied; procedural defaults could not be cured where appeal would be futile, and the judge’s role regarding a self-represented litigant did not require special assistance beyond ensuring fairness.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution refused; time for appealing extended; claimants to pay costs.

Orders

  • Application to stay execution of the writ of possession refused.
  • Time for appealing against the judgment of Allen J of 18 June 1993 is extended to 17 November 1993.