National Australia Bank Ltd v Symons

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 8753 of 2001

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD	Plaintiff
v
PETER JAMES SYMONS & JANETTE CATHRYN SYMONS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	National Australia Bank v Symons & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 217

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A. Segal	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
For the Defendants	Mrs J.C. Symons

HIS HONOUR:

Originally in these proceedings I had before me an ex parte application for a stay of an execution which has long been outstanding, and which has been many times postponed. Before me was the applicant, Mrs Symons. Now I have now before me counsel for the respondent for the application, the plaintiff in the original proceedings, the National Australia Bank, as well as Mrs Symons.

I have heard Mrs Symons state facts from the bar table. She is not on oath. I have had the benefit of submissions from Mr Segal, counsel for the National Australia Bank, together with an amplitude of factual material provided by Mrs Symons which has been sworn and placed before me.

I do not accept the evidence - I withdraw the word evidence - I do not accept the statements of Mrs Symons, which are not in evidence, but are statements from the Bar table. I do not consider they are truthful. I do not consider there is any proven or persuasive foundation for the further adjournment of these long outstanding proceedings, and I refuse the application.

(Discussion ensued about costs.)

I grant costs in this matter to the plaintiff, the National Australia Bank, on a solicitor-client basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the National Australia Bank Ltd, a financial institution, sued Peter James Symons and Janette Cathryn Symons, a married couple, over a debt. The bank sought to enforce an outstanding judgment against the couple, which had been postponed several times. The couple applied for a stay of execution, which would temporarily halt the enforcement of the judgment. The case was heard by Cummins J, who had previously presided over an ex parte application for a stay by Janette Symons. The application was now being contested by the bank.

The central legal issue was whether the court should grant a stay of execution on the bank's judgment against the Symonses. The court needed to assess the credibility of the Symonses' submissions and whether there was a valid reason to further postpone the enforcement of the judgment. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Symonses had provided sufficient grounds to justify the stay of execution, particularly given the prolonged nature of the proceedings and the multiple adjournments already granted.

Cummins J concluded that the statements made by Janette Symons from the bar table, which were not under oath, were not credible. The judge found no persuasive foundation for further adjournment of the proceedings and refused the application for a stay of execution. The court also addressed the issue of costs, ultimately awarding costs to the bank on a solicitor-client basis. This decision effectively allowed the bank to proceed with enforcing its judgment against the Symonses.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established