In Bayly v Westpac Banking Corporation, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a summary judgment granted in favour of Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac).
Whilst there were broadly, two grounds of appeal, the appellant was self-represented and raised numerous issues and alleged errors of law and fact made by the primary Judge.
In August 2006, Dallas Henry Bayly obtained finance from St George Bank Limited (St George) for a total sum of $256,800. The loans were secured by a first registered mortgage over a unit at Broadbeach (Broadbeach Property).
In February 2010, APRA issued a Certificate of Transfer which recognised agreements between St George and Westpac for the voluntary transfer of St George’s business to Westpac. The effect of this is that from 1 March 2010, Westpac became the statutory successor in law to all of St George interests and liabilities.
Mr Bayly ceased making loan repayments in September 2016. As a result, Westpac’s solicitors issued a default notice to Mr Bayly in December 2018 which was not satisfied.
On 27 March 2019, Westpac commenced proceedings in the District Court of Queensland for the debt owing to it and for possession of the Broadbeach Property.
Mr Bayly defended the proceedings, filing three defences. Judge Koppenol presided over Westpac’s summary judgment application and made orders in favour of Westpac on 29 January 2020.
Mr Bayly’s appeal was based on two grounds:
Ultimately the Court held that both grounds of appeal had no merit and dismissed the appeal with costs. Mr Bayly represented himself with the assistance from a Mr Andrews, to whom the Court gave leave to appear and assist.
First Ground of Appeal
In his amended defence, Mr Bayly admitted that the District Court had jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings and he did not argue its lack of jurisdiction before Judge Koppenol.
The Court of Appeal held the first ground was unsupported and without merit.
Second Ground of Appeal
Mr Bayly and Mr Andrews made numerous submissions to support the second ground of appeal. Each submission was considered by the Court and ultimately found not to support any real prospect of Mr Bayly succeeding on his defence against Westpac’s proceedings.
‘The Sum of Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars Australian Only
First Avenue Tavern, At the Crown Plaza Hotel, at the entrance to the First Avenue Entrance in First Avenue, Broadbeach, Queensland, Australia
At 10.30 am hours without; let, delay, hindrance or ado on The Fifth day of September, AD 2019′
Westpac’s standing, proof of claim and, Judge Koppenol’s ‘obstruction’
Mr Bayly submitted that he had no contractual relationship with Westpac and that Westpac could not prove the advance of funds to him nor the source of those funds that were advanced to him. Westpac’s material clearly demonstrated that it was the statutory successor to St George and entitled to exercise all rights available under the facilities and mortgage. Its material also included a copy of loan account statements showing funds advanced to Mr Bayly and the Court considered it was irrelevant where a bank may source funds to advance to its customers.
Mr Bayly also complained of ‘obstruction’ by Judge Koppenol and appears to have taken His Honour’s rejection of various untenable arguments as his Honour having ‘avoided, ignored or circumvented taking into consideration’ what was said. After a review of the transcript of hearing before Judge Koppenol, the Court found His Honour to be courteous; allowing Mr Bayly and Mr Andrews the proper opportunity to present Mr Bayly’s case which ultimately, was based on legally and factually wrong principles.
Barbara-Ann Sim, Partner
Caitlin Milligan, Lawyer
  QCA 148.
  1 WLR 357 at 361B.