Rowe v National Australia Bank

This matter concerned appeals by the applicants, Rowe and another, against orders made by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary dispute involved a registered mortgage over the applicants' property securing a loan from National Australia Bank (the respondent). The applicants were in default under the loan agreement, and the bank had issued a letter of demand and foreshadowed possession proceedings. The appeals also involved orders relating to a judgment and costs award obtained by third parties, the Bishops, against the applicants in the District Court, and applications by the Bishops for a freezing order variation and a charging order.

The court was required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal against orders for possession, the joinder of the Bishops as interested parties, and a charging order. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicants could raise new issues and seek various documents for the first time on appeal, and whether to permit fresh or further evidence to be adduced. The applicants also sought to challenge the refusal of leave to appeal by the primary judge.

The court found that the applicants' resort to "pseudo-law" and the introduction of new issues and document requests on appeal were not permissible. These matters had either been rejected by the appeal judge or could not be raised for the first time in the appellate court. The appeal judge had carefully considered the evidence, including the loan contract, the default, and the correspondence from the bank. He had also considered the applicants' attempts to join the Bishops and the Bishops' applications for ancillary orders. The appeal judge had correctly identified that leave to appeal was required for the possession order and other interlocutory orders under the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). Ultimately, the appeal judge refused leave to appeal, finding that none of the grounds of appeal were sufficiently arguable to warrant its grant, and dismissed the application for fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the appeal judge. The applicants' attempts to introduce new arguments and evidence on appeal were unsuccessful, and the grounds of appeal were not found to be arguable.