Cusack v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application by Mr P.L. Cusack, appearing in person, against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. The dispute arose from a mortgage agreement between Mr Cusack and his wife and the Bank. The Bank alleged default under the mortgage, claiming a debt of $120,000, and subsequently commenced an action seeking possession of the land. Mr Cusack had filed a defence and counter-claim, which the Bank applied to strike out.

The central legal issues before the Court involved the proper characterisation of the transaction between Mr Cusack and the Bank, specifically whether it constituted a "borrowing" or the issuance of credit as circulation, and the validity of the Supreme Court's order striking out Mr Cusack's defence and counter-claim. The Court was also required to determine the procedural history of the case, including whether an amended defence was filed after the original defence was struck out.

His Honour, in questioning Mr Cusack, sought to clarify the nature of the transaction, with Mr Cusack contending that "borrowing" was not an appropriate term and that credit was issued as circulation for business purposes. The Court noted that the Bank alleged default and a debt of $120,000. The Bank's application to strike out the defence and counter-claim was granted, with leave to enter an amended defence. Mr Hack, appearing for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, informed the Court that no amended pleading was delivered after the counter-claim was struck out and liberty to replead was not availed of.