Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd trading as Bank of Western Australia

The appeal concerned a dispute between a borrower, Neale, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd trading as Bank of Western Australia, the mortgagee. Neale alleged that the mortgaged property had been sold at undervalue, but these allegations had been removed from his cross-claim prior to trial. The appeal was heard by Macfarlan, Ward and Leeming JJA.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a further amendment to Neale's pleadings on the ninth day of the trial, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant an adjournment when the defendant's solicitor was granted leave to cease to act on the first day of the trial.

The court reasoned that Neale had been given repeated opportunities to provide valuation evidence to support his claim of sale at undervalue, but had failed to do so. Consequently, there was no error in refusing a further amendment at such a late stage of the trial. Regarding the adjournment, the court noted that no adjournment was sought by Neale, who was acting for himself, and that he had previously made repeated applications for adjournments. Therefore, no error was shown in this regard.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.