Betty Matsoukatidou & Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

[2015] HCASL 65

BETTY MATSOUKATIDOU & ANOR

v

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

[2015] HCASL 65
M2/2015

1. The respondent entered into a loan agreement with the first applicant which was secured by a mortgage executed by the first and second applicants and guaranteed by the second applicant.  The applicants defaulted on their respective obligations.  The respondent commenced proceedings to enforce the loan, mortgage and guarantee in the County Court of Victoria and applied for summary judgment.  That application was repeatedly adjourned because the applicants lodged disputes with Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd ("FOS") under an approved external dispute resolution scheme the terms of reference of which precluded the respondent from pursuing its proceedings while FOS was dealing with the disputes.  After a period of over two years, the respondent's application for summary judgment was finally heard.  The County Court (Judge Cosgrave) permitted the respondent to rely at the hearing on affidavits exhibiting emails from FOS which stated that the applicants' previous disputes had been resolved and that new disputes that they had lodged would be "deleted" because they raised issues dealt with under previous disputes.  The County Court gave summary judgment for the respondent.  

2. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Bongiorno, Beach and Kyrou JJA) dismissed an appeal by the applicants in which they had sought to argue, amongst other things, that they were denied natural justice by the County Court's refusal to grant them an adjournment to obtain legal representation and an interpreter, and by the Court's decision to permit the respondent to file the affidavits.  

3. The applicants now seek special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal. The applicants do not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

4. The gravamen of the applicants' proposed argument in this Court is that FOS lacked power to delete, or to summarily refuse to deal with, their disputes and that there was therefore no basis for the grant of summary judgment in favour of the respondent.  The argument does not appear to have been ventilated in those terms in the Court of Appeal and no question of law arising from the reasoning of that Court is identified which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  The application is dismissed.

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

V.M. Bell
6 May 2015 S.J. Gageler