Terrence Roger Mytton‑Watson & Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

TERRENCE ROGER MYTTON‑WATSON & ANOR
v
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
[2013] HCASL 44
P40/2012

The applicants seek special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Newnes and Murphy JJA) dismissing an appeal to that Court which they had instituted out of time, refusing an extension of time within which to appeal and refusing to stay the operation of the orders made at first instance which they sought to challenge. At first instance, Master Sanderson had ordered the applicants to pay the respondent $666,851.64 plus interest and give possession of two properties to the respondents.
In the Court of Appeal, the applicants alleged in effect that they were denied procedural fairness at first instance. They seek to renew that argument in this Court, without identifying any error by the Court of Appeal in respect of that complaint.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 April 2013 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Terrence Roger Mytton-Watson and another, sought special leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which dismissed their appeal out of time and refused an extension of time and a stay of the orders made at first instance. The original order required the applicants to pay the Commonwealth Bank of Australia $666,851.64 plus interest and to give possession of two properties to the bank. The applicants argued that they were denied procedural fairness at first instance and sought to renew this argument in the High Court. However, they did not identify any error by the Court of Appeal in respect of this complaint.

The legal issues in this case were whether the Court of Appeal correctly dismissed the applicants' appeal out of time, refused an extension of time, and refused to stay the operation of the orders made at first instance. The applicants argued that they were denied procedural fairness at first instance, but they did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The Court of Appeal found that the applicants had not demonstrated any error by the Court of Appeal in respect of this complaint. The High Court needed to determine whether the applicants' appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

The High Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had considered the applicants' arguments and found that they had not demonstrated any error in the first instance decision. The High Court held that an appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

The High Court dismissed the applicants' application for special leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any error by the Court of Appeal in respect of their complaint of procedural unfairness at first instance. The Court held that an appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established