Matsoukatidou & Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

[2014] VSCA 229

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay of proceedings
3. › Stay of judgment pending appeal
4. › Whether special or exceptional circumstances exist
5. › Whether appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay not ordered
6. › Whether applicant has substantive defence
7. › Application in context of summary judgment
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Financial Ombudsman Service
4. › Whether court has jurisdiction to review FOS decision to exclude dispute
5. › Collateral challenge to FOS determination
6. › FOS Terms of Reference, cl 5.3, cl 13.1
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Natural justice
3. › Summary judgment
4. › Whether party given adequate opportunity to be heard
5. › Whether failure to allow submissions on material filed after adjournment constituted denial of natural justice

Quick Take

A decision of the Financial Ombudsman Service to exclude or delete a dispute is not judicially reviewable, and a court hearing proceedings against a borrower is not entitled to look behind FOS's representations that no outstanding disputes exist. The FOS Terms of Reference cl 5.3(b) qualification — that FOS must be satisfied the objection 'may have substance' — means FOS is not required to undertake the full review process for every dispute lodged, and an interpretation requiring otherwise would produce an absurd result by allowing indefinite stays of court proceedings through serial dispute lodgement.