Garry Anthony Moon & Anor v Secure Funding Pty Ltd (ACN 081 982 872)

GARRY ANTHONY MOON & ANOR
v
SECURE FUNDING PTY LTD (ACN 081 982 872) & ORS
[2014] HCASL 42
B52/2013

The first respondent, Secure Funding Pty Ltd ("Secure") brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland to enforce its rights under a loan agreement with the applicants following their default. The loan was secured by a mortgage over the applicants' property. By counterclaim the applicants sought to have the loan and mortgage set aside. The applicants were self-represented at the trial.
On 7 September 2012 P Lyons J made an order for possession and gave judgment in favour of Secure in the amount of $1,057,916.83. His Honour dismissed the applicants' counterclaim.
The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Daubney J). The applicants did not attend the hearing of their appeal. Prior to the hearing the first applicant appears to have sent an email to the Registry of the Court of Appeal purporting to "cancel the upcoming appeal … due to the absence of demonstrated authority" and declaring judgment in his favour[1]. As the applicants did not file a notice of abandonment of their appeal, the Court of Appeal proceeded to consider and dismiss the appeal on its merits.
[1]Moon v Secure Funding Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 86 at 3, 4.
The applicants apply for special leave to appeal. As the applicants do not have legal representation, their application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) ("the Rules").
They require an extension of time under r 41.02.2 of the Rules. The reasons advanced for the failure to comply with the Rules include that the applicants were unaware that their appeal had proceeded notwithstanding its "cancellation". The purported grounds and the applicants' summary of argument are largely unintelligible. There is no utility in the extension of time that is sought, since no arguable basis for challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal is articulated.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
12 March 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Garry Anthony Moon and another brought a case against Secure Funding Pty Ltd and others in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a default on a loan agreement, secured by a mortgage on the applicants' property. The respondents sought to enforce their rights under the loan agreement, and the applicants counterclaimed to set aside the loan and mortgage. The applicants, who were self-represented, lost their case in the Supreme Court and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. However, they did not attend the hearing of their appeal, and the appeal was dismissed on its merits. The applicants now seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants' application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed due to their failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) and whether the applicants' grounds for appeal were intelligible and arguable. The applicants' application for special leave to appeal fell under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) because they did not have legal representation. The applicants required an extension of time under rule 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) to file their application for special leave to appeal. The reasons given for the failure to comply with the Rules included the applicants' unawareness that their appeal had proceeded despite their "cancellation." However, the applicants' grounds for appeal and their summary of argument were largely unintelligible, and there was no utility in the extension of time that they sought since no arguable basis for challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal was articulated.

The court held that the applicants' application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed. The reasons advanced for the failure to comply with the Rules were insufficient to warrant an extension of time. The applicants' grounds for appeal and their summary of argument were largely unintelligible, and there was no utility in the extension of time that they sought since no arguable basis for challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal was articulated. The applicants did not provide any intelligible grounds for appeal, and their summary of argument was not sufficient to establish any arguable basis for challenge to the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established