Matthew Travis Norman v National Australia Bank Limited

[2012] HCASL 194

MATTHEW TRAVIS NORMAN

v

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED

[2012] HCASL 194
M67/2012

1. The applicant and his wife granted the respondent a mortgage over real property to secure the repayment of loans. The respondent brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria claiming possession of the property pursuant to the mortgage and payment of money under the loans.  The applicant and his wife defended the proceedings.  They also made a counterclaim in the proceedings on grounds which included that the respondent had engaged in “predatory lending”.

2. The respondent sought summary judgment on its claims for possession and payment of money and also on the counterclaim.  On 30 November 2011 Lansdowne AsJ gave summary judgment on the claim for possession and payment of money and dismissed the wife's counterclaim on the basis that she was bankrupt.   Her Honour also dismissed the applicant's counterclaim save for allegations of predatory lending.  After giving the applicant an opportunity to file further material to support those allegations, Lansdowne AsJ summarily dismissed the balance of the applicant's counterclaim on 14 December 2011.  The applicant appealed from judgments the Associate Justice to a Judge of the Supreme Court (Judd J) who heard the appeal by way of re-hearing de novo.

3. On 6 February 2012, Judd J dismissed the appeal.  His Honour held that the counterclaim was not shown to have any factual foundation and that the defence and counterclaim had no prospect of success.

4. On 18 May 2012, the Court of Appeal (Warren CJ and Harper JA) held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the reasoning of Judd J and refused leave to appeal.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal.

5. There is no error of principle in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal.  The conclusion of the Court of Appeal that there is no arguable error in the reasoning of Judd J is undoubtedly correct.  A grant of special leave would not be in the interests of the proper administration of justice.  Special leave is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
12 December 2012 S.J. Gageler