Lucisano v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] FCA 243

Lucisano v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] FCA 243

The application for interim relief was refused because the applicant identified no cause of action or facts giving rise to any serious question to be tried, including no apparent contravention of the NCCP Act that would enliven s 177, and in any event the balance of convenience did not favour relief given the existing judgment for possession, the expected notice to vacate, the outstanding secured funds, and the applicant's inability to pay those funds into Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application for Interim Relief to Restrain Westpac Banking Corporation From Taking Further Steps to Take Possession of the Applicant's Property / Interim Application Heard on 17 March 2015
Outcome
The applicant's application for interim relief was refused, with costs payable to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['interim Injunction' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'warrant for Possession' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience']
['banking and Finance' 'consumer Credit' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['interim Injunction' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'warrant for Possession' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application for Interim Relief to Restrain Westpac Banking Corporation From Taking Further Steps to Take Possession of the Applicant's Property / Interim Application Heard on 17 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant established a serious question to be tried warranting interim injunctive relief restraining WBC from taking possession of the Property.' "Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim injunction to prevent the applicant's eviction from the Property."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim relief was refused because the applicant identified no cause of action or facts giving rise to any serious question to be tried, including no apparent contravention of the NCCP Act that would enliven s 177, and in any event the balance of convenience did not favour relief given the existing judgment for possession, the expected notice to vacate, the outstanding secured funds, and the applicant's inability to pay those funds into Court.

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for interim relief was refused, with costs payable to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for interim relief filed on 17 March 2015 be refused." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of that application."]