St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Ian Craig Press [2017] NSWSC 1129

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Ian Craig Press [2017] NSWSC 1129 Hearing dates: 21 August 2017 Decision date: 21 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) The notice of motion of the defendant, Ian Craig Press, filed on 23 June 2017, is dismissed. (2) The defendant, Ian Craig Press, must pay the costs of the plaintiff, St George Bank, of the proceedings. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of execution of writ of possession – appeal pending – reliance on "promissory notes" in satisfaction of judgment debt – application refused Cases Cited: St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Ian Craig Press (Supreme Court (NSW), Fagan J, 9 June 2017, unrep) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: St. George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation (Plaintiff) Ian Craig Press (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr Conor Bannan (Plaintiff) Mr Ian Craig Press, self-represented (Defendant)

Solicitors: Ms K Wells, Kemp Strang Solicitors (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2015/317127 Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Background 1. This application for the stay of the execution of a writ of possession issued by the plaintiff, St George Bank (St George), has something of a long history. But because of the (with respect) comprehensive judgment of his Honour Fagan J of 9 June 2017, I can state things shortly: St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation v Ian Craig Press (Supreme Court (NSW), Fagan J, 9 June 2017, unrep). The other reason for being concise and determinative now is, of course, the repeated delays in the resolution of this matter, which will become apparent later in this judgment. 2. In the proceedings before his Honour, the defendant, Mr Press, sought to resist the force of a deed entered into by himself and St George, after a mediation, which occurred after the commencement of proceedings against him by St George founded upon a loan and mortgage. Two bases of resistance were argued: the provision to St George by Mr Press of what he called promissory notes, said to be equivalent to cash and therefore discharging the debt in its entirety, and the proposition that he had entered into the deed under duress. 3. His Honour rejected the first ground of resistance on the basis that it was ill-founded in law. His Honour rejected the second ground of resistance on the basis that circumstantial evidence, not least of which was the behaviour of Mr Press himself, showed that he had not been the subject of duress when he entered into the deed. To give but one example, the proffering of the so-called promissory notes showed that Mr Press accepted that he was liable pursuant to that document. 4. Before the judgment of his Honour, and when repayment of the debt of something over half $1 million was not forthcoming from Mr Press in accordance with the deed, St George had sought to enforce the deed by way of filing consent orders in this Court. Mr Press resisted that, and without detailing the forensic steps thereafter that have taken place between 9 June 2017, the date of his Honour's judgment, and today, 21 August 2017, it is clear that Mr Press has been accommodated by this Court to some degree. 5. He has now sought to have the writ put off yet further, on the principal basis, as I understand it, that he has filed a notice of appeal, albeit only a few days ago. His position is that no writ should be enforced before the first return date of the appeal, which I understand to be 18 October 2017. 6. It is noteworthy that, in truth, the writ will not be executed today, tomorrow, or in the very near future; from the Bar table, counsel for St George predicted that, logistically, the writ will not be actually enforced before the effluxion of approximately four weeks from today.