Bodapati v Westpac Banking Corporation - [2015] QCA 7

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bodapati & Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor [2015] QCA 7

PARTIES:

PURUSHOTHAMA NAIDU BODAPATI
(first applicant)
RENUKA BODAPATI
(second applicant)
v
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
ABN 33 007 457 141
(first respondent)
JULIE ANNE WILLIAMS
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2080 of 2014
SC No 6619 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Peter Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for extension of time to appeal refused.

2.   Application for leave to join Archana Bodapati to proceedings refused.

3.   Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused.

4.   The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of these proceedings, to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the trial judge refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property – where applicants seek leave to raise new grounds for relief and to adduce further evidence on appeal – whether applicants should be permitted to raise additional grounds – whether applicants should be bound by the conduct of proceedings at first instance – whether some of the evidence is relevant to the ground on which the applicants relied at first instance – whether second applicant should be permitted to give evidence clarifying evidence she gave at first instance

EQUITY – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – GENERALLY – where the trial judge refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property – where applicants seek leave to extend time for application to appeal – where property the subject of the proposed interlocutory injunction has been sold – whether utility in appeal where the only benefit possible is an alteration to a costs order

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONBALE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – SPECIAL DISABILITY – where the trial judge refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property – where applicants claim that first respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct when providing finance – whether applicants with tertiary qualifications and 12 months’ experience in the relevant industry were under a special disability or disadvantage

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46, cited
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51; [2003] HCA 18, cited
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14; applied
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33, cited
Elkofairi v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (2002) 11 BPR 20,841; [2002] NSWCA 413, distinguished
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited (2013) 250 CLR 392;

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bodapati v Westpac Banking Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QCA 7
Decision Date: 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bodapati v Westpac Banking Corporation involved the applicants, Bodapati and others, seeking to appeal a decision of the trial judge which had refused their application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a property. The applicants sought leave to raise new grounds for relief, adduce further evidence, and extend the time for their application to appeal. The respondents, Westpac Banking Corporation and others, opposed the applications on the basis of the applicants' conduct of the proceedings at first instance and the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants should be permitted to raise additional grounds for relief and adduce further evidence on appeal, whether they should be bound by the conduct of proceedings at first instance, whether some of the evidence was relevant to the ground on which the applicants relied at first instance, and whether the second applicant should be permitted to give evidence clarifying evidence she gave at first instance. The court also considered whether there was any utility in the appeal where the only benefit possible was an alteration to a costs order.

The court found that the applicants' application for an extension of time to appeal should be refused as the property had already been sold. The court also found that the applicants' application to join Archana Bodapati to the proceedings should be refused as it was an attempt to circumvent the rules of court. The court further found that the applicants' application to adduce further evidence should be refused as some of the evidence was not relevant to the ground on which the applicants relied at first instance and the second applicant's evidence was merely an attempt to clarify evidence she had already given at first instance. The court held that the applicants should be bound by the conduct of proceedings at first instance.

The orders of the court were that the applicants' application for an extension of time to appeal be refused, their application to join Archana Bodapati to the proceedings be refused, and their application to adduce further evidence be refused. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for extension of time to appeal refused.

2. Application for leave to join Archana Bodapati to proceedings refused.

3. Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused.

4. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of these proceedings, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Bodapati & Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor [2015] QCA 7
PARTIES:	PURUSHOTHAMA NAIDU BODAPATI (first applicant) RENUKA BODAPATI (second applicant) v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION ABN 33 007 457 141 (first respondent) JULIE ANNE WILLIAMS (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 2080 of 2014 SC No 6619 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 July 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Peter Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for extension of time to appeal refused. 2. Application for leave to join Archana Bodapati to proceedings refused. 3. Application for leave to adduce further evidence refused. 4. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of these proceedings, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the trial judge refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property – where applicants seek leave to raise new grounds for relief and to adduce further evidence on appeal – whether applicants should be permitted to raise additional grounds – whether applicants should be bound by the conduct of proceedings at first instance – whether some of the evidence is relevant to the ground on which the applicants relied at first instance – whether second applicant should be permitted to give evidence clarifying evidence she gave at first instance EQUITY – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – GENERALLY – where the trial judge refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property – where applicants seek leave to extend time for application to appeal – where property the subject of the proposed interlocutory injunction has been sold – whether utility in appeal where the only benefit possible is an alteration to a costs order EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONBALE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – SPECIAL DISABILITY – where the trial judge refused an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property – where applicants claim that first respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct when providing finance – whether applicants with tertiary qualifications and 12 months’ experience in the relevant industry were under a special disability or disadvantage Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46, cited Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51; [2003] HCA 18, cited Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14; applied Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33, cited Elkofairi v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (2002) 11 BPR 20,841; [2002] NSWCA 413, distinguished Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited (2013) 250 CLR 392;