Fazio v Westpac Banking Corporation

The appellant has appealed against an order of Master Sanderson of 24 September 2013, which granted summary judgment to the respondent. The respondent, Westpac Banking Corporation, had commenced proceedings against the appellant, alleging default under a loan agreement and mortgage. The court was required to determine whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the appellant had complied with procedural requirements. The respondent argued that the grounds of appeal were without merit and that the appellant had failed to adhere to certain procedural rules. Additionally, the respondent sought to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appellant's mental health issues did not justify a further adjournment.

The court considered the merits of the appeal and the procedural compliance by the appellant. It found that the grounds of appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and that the appellant had not complied with certain procedural requirements. The court also noted that the appellant had been able to manage other legal proceedings despite his claimed mental health issues, which undermined his request for further adjournments. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed as it had no reasonable prospect of success and that the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient justification for the procedural failures.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order granting summary judgment to the respondent was upheld. The court further determined that there was no basis for suspending the execution of the judgment pending the appeal. The respondent's application to strike out the grounds of appeal was also granted. The court found that the appellant had not provided any evidence to support his claims or to rebut the respondent's affidavit. The court ruled that the appeal was frivolous and that the appellant had not shown any likelihood of success on appeal.