Konings v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [No 2]
[2016] WASCA 178
•14 OCTOBER 2016
KONINGS -v- COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2016] WASCA 178
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASCA 178 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 14/10/2016 | ||
| Case No: | CACV:24/2016 | 3 OCTOBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | NEWNES JA MURPHY JA | 3/10/16 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JAN LAURENS KONINGS JULIE KONINGS COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of success Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Konings v The Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] WASCA 122 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : KONINGS -v- COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2016] WASCA 178 CORAM : NEWNES JA
- MURPHY JA
- JULIE KONINGS
Appellants
AND
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MASTER SANDERSON
File No : CIV 1627 of 2015
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of success - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellants : In person
Respondent : Ms N Fraser
Solicitors:
Appellants : In person
Respondent : Gadens Lawyers
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Konings v The Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] WASCA 122
- REASONS OF THE COURT:
(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously and have been edited from the transcript.)
1 This is an appeal from a decision of Master Sanderson, who ordered that summary judgment be entered for the respondent. The appellants were ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of $992,932.92 plus interest and to give vacant possession of a property secured by a mortgage to the respondent.
2 The appeal comes before the court on a registrar's notice to attend for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to rule 43(2)(g)(i) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) on the basis that none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of succeeding.
3 The matter previously came before the court on the appellant's application for a stay of enforcement of the judgment. The court found, for reasons it explained, that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding and, accordingly, dismissed the application: Konings v The Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] WASCA 122. The grounds of appeal were set out in [9] of the reasons, but the court also dealt with two further matters raised by the appellants that were not contained in the grounds of appeal.
4 The grounds of appeal remain unchanged and there is nothing to suggest that there exists any basis upon which the appellants might successfully challenge the master's decision. It follows that the grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospect of succeeding and the appeal must be dismissed. There will be an order accordingly.
0