Poulos v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2023] NSWCA 262

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Poulos v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2023] NSWCA 262 Hearing dates: 27 October 2023 Date of orders: 1 November 2023 Decision date: 01 November 2023 Before: Ward ACJ; Adamson JA Decision: 1. Refuse leave for an extension of time for the filing of the summons seeking leave to appeal. 2. Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal as incompetent. 3. Order the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent. 4. Direct the applicant to file submissions within 14 days as to why the matter should not be referred to the Attorney-General for consideration as to whether to make an application for the applicant to be declared a vexatious litigant. Catchwords: APPEALS – Procedure – Leave to appeal – Application out of time – Application for leave to appeal from summary dismissal of proceedings – Serious allegations of fraud – Deficiencies in pleading allegations of fraud – Proceedings seeking to re-agitate issues determined over 30 years ago Legislation Cited: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 17 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4(1)(b), 14.7, 14.14, 15.1, 51.10(2) Cases Cited: Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA 290 Central Exploration Pty Ltd v Zuks [2020] WASC 46 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hacide Pty Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Sully J, 28 November 1989, unrep) Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 Elders Lensworth Finance Ltd v Glenwood Investments Pte Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Needham J, 8 December 1988, unrep) Hacide Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1991] NSWCA 134 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) 19 FCR 10; (1986) 69 ALR 660 Johnston v Smith [2002] NSWSC 409 Muriniti v LawCover Insurance Pty Limited [2022] NSWSC 90 Nadinic v Drinkwater (2017) 94 NSWLR 518; [2017] NSWCA 114 Poulos v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2021] NSWSC 971 Poulos v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1620 Poulos v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2022] NSWCA 218 Poulos v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2023] NSWSC 362 Poulos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 290 Poulos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 72 Poulos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 241 Poulos v Elliott [2019] NSWSC 423 Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13 Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 324 Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61; [2007] NSWCA 369 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28 Trau v University of Sydney (1989) 34 IR 466 UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77; [2018] HCA 45 Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [2011] NSWSC 433 Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 456 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Patricia Poulos (Applicant) Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant (self-represented) M Hall (Respondent)