The lenders obtained summary judgment and an order for possession and the borrower then sought to suspend its enforcement on the basis that judgment was obtained in her absence and the lender’s agent had allegedly falsified income and work history details in the loan application to meet the lender’s criteria and the lender had made no proper enquiries as to their capacity to repay the loan.

The court ordered a stay on the basis that the borrower had reasonable prospects of appealing the judgment. The court noted that there was arguably a failure of procedural fairness in not adjourning the hearing and an arguable defence under the National Credit Code that should go to a trial. The court also noted that the value of the properties exceeded the debt and so the balance of convenience favoured awarding the stay. 

Click here to read the full judgment

LesawebLesa Bransgrove holds a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Queensland and a Master of Laws from the University of London. Lesa was admitted as a solicitor of the Queensland Supreme Court in 1996 and the UK Supreme Court in 2002 and as a barrister of the NSW Bar in 2009. After working on the Lehman's litigation Lesa left the bar and joined Bransgroves.

Read more about Lesa Bransgrove