Lucisano v Westpac Banking Corporation

The matter of Lucisano v Westpac Banking Corporation involves an application by the applicant, Lucisano, for interim relief to restrain Westpac Banking Corporation (WBC) from executing a warrant for possession of the Property. The applicant's urgent application was filed on 17 March 2015, and the matter was heard on the same day. The applicant had been served with a notice to vacate the property on 11 March 2015 and was informed by the Sheriff that she would be evicted at 11:00am on 18 March 2015. The applicant seeks an interim injunction under various statutory provisions to prevent the execution of the warrant for possession until the hearing of her application. WBC, the first respondent, appeared for the hearing, while CSL, the second respondent, did not appear as no interim relief was sought against it.

The court had to decide whether an interim injunction should be granted based on the well-established test: whether there was a serious question to be tried and where the balance of convenience lay. The court found that the applicant failed to establish a serious question to be tried as no cause of action was identified. The applicant did not address any complaint about the warrant for possession, and the affidavits did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the applicant's claims. Consequently, the applicant could not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation of the status quo pending the trial.

In light of the above, the court refused the applicant's application for interim relief. The court ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application. The court's decision was based on the applicant's inability to establish a serious question to be tried, and the court found that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the respondent. The court's orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).