Vasiliou v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors [2008] HCATrans 30 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M71 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

PANAYIOTA VASILIOU

Applicant

and

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

First Respondent

LACHLAN IAN FENWICH

Second Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.51 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 encountered 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. 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.

An appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard by Maxwell P, Neave and Kellam JJA. Neave JA refused an application by the applicant that she recuse herself, and her Honour properly did so. On 29 May 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the decision of Byrne J. No error had been shown in his Honour's decision, nor had his Honour denied the applicant procedural fairness whether by failing to adjourn the trial or otherwise.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law or other ground 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 Kiefel J and myself.

AT 9.53 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED