Vasiliou v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors [2007] HCATrans 331 (14 June 2007)

Last Updated: 10 July 2007

[2007] HCATrans 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M134 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

PANAYIOTA VASILIOU

Applicant

and

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

First Respondent

LACHLAN IAN FENWICK

Second Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2007, AT 9.22 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant was formerly the registered proprietor of certain land in Glen Iris, Melbourne, which she mortgaged to the first respondent. After the applicant entered financial difficulties and fell into arrears, the first respondent exercised its power of sale under the mortgage and sold the land to the second respondent on or about 9 April 2001. The second respondent obtained a registered title. This application arises from litigation brought by the applicant concerning the propriety of that sale.

In a judgment of 11 June 2004, Byrne J of the Supreme Court of Victoria rejected the applicant's contentions that the sale was made at an undervalue or was otherwise not in good faith. While his Honour was critical of some aspects of the first respondent's conduct, he rejected the applicant's allegations of collusion or conspiracy between the first and second respondents.

Pending the hearing of an appeal from that decision, the applicant sought by summons certain orders from the Court of Appeal, including a stay of Byrne J's orders. The summons was largely dismissed by Eames and Neave JJA on 22 September 2006, as many of the orders sought were more properly to be considered at the hearing of the pending substantive appeal itself. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of 22 September 2006. These orders primarily relate to matters of practice and procedure with respect to pending appeals.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court. There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court. Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.24 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED