Connell v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

[2023] WASCA 48

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Banking and Finance
2. › Loan agreements
3. › Default
4. › Possession of secured property
5. › Summary judgment for bank against borrower
6. › Whether 'sovereign citizen' identity arguments provide arguable defence
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Application by plaintiff
4. › Whether defendant demonstrated arguable defence
5. › Whether production of 'wet ink' original contract required
6. › Whether identity arguments based on distinction between natural person and legal entity provide defence
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Dismissal for no reasonable prospect of success
4. › Non-attendance by appellant
5. › Whether further adjournment should be granted
6. › Non-compliance with court orders requiring medical evidence

Quick Take

Arguments based on 'sovereign citizen' theories — including purported distinctions between a natural person and a legal entity bearing the same name, and demands for production of 'wet ink' original contracts — are legal nonsense and provide no arguable defence to a bank's claim for possession of mortgaged property. A deposed true copy of a loan agreement is sufficient evidence in a summary judgment application without production of the original signed document.