National Australia Bank Limited v Reynolds

[2026] WASC 465

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Practice and procedure
2. › Enforcement of judgments
3. › Property (Seizure and Delivery) Order – issue of second order after re-entry by judgment debtor – s 95(1) Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
1. Practice and procedure
2. › Enforcement of judgments
3. › Ancillary restraining relief – s 95(3) Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) – inherent jurisdiction
1. Practice and procedure
2. › Res judicata and merger
3. › Enforcement of existing judgment not relitigation of cause of action
1. Practice and procedure
2. › Discovery
3. › Application for summons for discovery directed to underlying judgment – irrelevant to enforcement application – dismissed

Where a Property (Seizure and Delivery) Order has been executed but the judgment debtor later re-enters and refuses to surrender possession, a valid judgment for possession supports the issue of a further PSDO under s 95(1) of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), following Tomcsanyi v National Australia Bank Ltd [2019] WASCA 154.
An application for a further PSDO is enforcement of an existing judgment, not relitigation of the cause of action, so res judicata and merger are not engaged; nor does s 102(5) of the Act, concerning cessation of the earlier order, bar the issue of a new PSDO as distinct from extending the prior order.
Ancillary orders restraining a judgment debtor from entering or interfering with the property may be made under s 95(3) of the Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction where, on the evidence, there is a reasonable apprehension of re-entry or obstruction after execution by the sheriff.