James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

The applicant, James, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of Ball J dismissing an application to set aside a consent judgment entered on 16 May 2014. The dispute concerned the validity of an agreement upon which the consent judgment was based, with James alleging misleading or deceptive conduct and non-disclosure of information by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether it should grant leave to appeal, considering whether there was an issue of principle, a question of general public importance, or an injustice to the applicant that went beyond merely arguable grounds. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles governing the setting aside of consent judgments, particularly in light of challenges to the underlying agreement, and the relevance of actual or constructive knowledge of a party regarding the beliefs of the other party in the context of non-disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the summons for leave to appeal, finding that the grounds raised did not meet the threshold for granting leave. The judges applied the principles established in cases concerning the finality of entered orders and the limited circumstances in which consent judgments can be set aside, particularly when the challenge relates to the validity of the agreement underpinning the judgment. The court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated an injustice that warranted intervention.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the summons filed on 3 October 2019 be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the Court of Appeal.