Westpac Banking Corporation v Parker [2012] NSWSC 514

Westpac Banking Corporation v Parker [2012] NSWSC 514

The defendants' interlocutory motion was dismissed because, although the requested alteration of the Veda report might assist them practically to refinance, the relief was not objectively for the purpose of advancing the claims in the principal mortgage possession proceedings and therefore should not be granted on...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Mortgage Possession Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion dismissed; costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['relief Against Forfeiture' 'unconscionability' 'default Under Mortgage' 'credit Reporting Agency Listing' 'interlocutory Relief' 'costs in the Cause']
['equity' 'mortgage Law' 'civil Procedure' 'privacy and Credit Reporting'] ['relief Against Forfeiture' 'unconscionability' 'default Under Mortgage' 'credit Reporting Agency Listing' 'interlocutory Relief' 'costs in the Cause']

Source-derived case record

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

Mortgage Possession Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should order Westpac to do all things necessary to cancel and remove the Consumer Credit Information Report lodged with Veda in respect of the defendants.' 'Whether the proceedings should be stood over to 31 August 2012.' 'Whether the equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture or unconscionable conduct supported the interlocutory relief sought.' 'Whether the interlocutory relief sought had a sufficient relationship with the principal possession proceedings.' 'Whether granting the relief would effectively determine the proceedings on a final basis.' 'What costs order should be made on the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' interlocutory motion was dismissed because, although the requested alteration of the Veda report might assist them practically to refinance, the relief was not objectively for the purpose of advancing the claims in the principal mortgage possession proceedings and therefore should not be granted on an interlocutory application. Further, granting the relief would require the Court to determine that the debt was no longer owing or that Westpac's contrary position was unconscionable, which would effectively determine the proceedings on a final basis.

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion dismissed; costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the defendants' notice of motion filed in Court on 5 April 2012." 'Order that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause.']