Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 3]

[2026] WASC 305

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Practice and procedure
1. Enforcement of judgments
1. Whether property seizure and delivery order irregular on the basis that no leave was granted to enforce a conditional order
1. It did not specify the time within which it had to be complied with

A final order regularly and formally entered is completely effective unless and until rescinded, altered or amended, and can only be challenged on appeal or in proceedings to set aside the judgment for fraud — not by a Justice of the General Division on grounds of invalidity or unenforceability.
A possession order directing delivery of vacant possession without specifying a compliance timeline is not an order 'subject to the fulfilment of a condition' within the meaning of CJEA s 13(1)(b), and accordingly no leave to enforce is required under that provision.
Where an application to set aside a judgment for fraud is brought within the original action rather than by separate proceedings, the court may summarily dismiss it where there is no substance in any of the allegations of fraud; assertions based on the United States Uniform Commercial Code and 'birth certificate securities' theories are so clearly untenable that they cannot possibly succeed.