LACEY v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [1996] NSWCA 311

LACEY v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY P, MEAGHER JA and BEAZLEY JA 22 July 1996

[1996] NSWCA 311

Mahoney P. This is an application by Ms Lacey to have this Court review the decision given by Waddell AJA on 22 April 1996.

Ms Lacey was a defendant in proceedings before the District Court. The proceedings were essentially to recover from her what the plaintiff, the Bank of New Zealand, claims is the amount owing to the bank on the mortgage which it gave to her and which it claims has not been repaid.

The matter was heard before his Honour Judge Herron QC. On 13 September 1995 his Honour gave judgment. He made findings against Ms Lacey and gave judgment for the bank. I do not pursue the amounts that were the subject of the judgment. Ms Lacey appeared for herself in those proceedings. The judge, in a long and detailed judgment of some 20 pages or so, dealt with a number of the matters that were before him. Some of these involved the determination of the credibility, that isthe acceptability, as witnesses of some of the witnesses before him. His Honour in effect gave judgment for the bank.

Ms Lacey has appealed to this Court against the judgment. Appeal books have been prepared and filed. The Court does not know when the appeal is likely to come on for hearing. The grounds of appeal which are set forth in the ordinary way in the appeal books cover a number of allegations, some relating to the way in which the trial was conducted, some relating to matters arising from the evidence, some suggesting, eg, that the judge had had prior discussions with a Mr Stratton, described as 'a hostile witness for the defence'. There are, in the grounds of appeal, a number of allegations of various kinds.

An application was made by Ms Lacey for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal. The application was determined by Waddell AJA on 22 April 1996. His Honour, in a judgment which he then gave and which is before the Court, came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient chance of the appeal succeeding. He said that there was no sufficient case made out on the grounds or the additional grounds of appeal and that a stay should not be granted.