The borrower repeatedly attempted to have the bank’s default judgment for possession set aside but was turned away as having no arguable defence. The borrower appealed on the basis that he was denied procedural fairness.
The Court of Appeal agreed the borrower had no defence because there was nothing to suggest that the borrower’s income was such that repayments could not be met and the bank was unconscionably engaged in asset lending. The court noted that the borrower owned three properties and a business with a substantial cash flow. The court found no error in the trial judge’s finding that the borrower’s income had not being falsified by the bank.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.