AMP v Naidu [2015] NSWSC 1169

The bank obtained possession back in January 2012. The borrower repeatedly said that funds were coming from various sources to enable her to pay her arrears (a “scratchie”, from Canada and more gravely, led the borrower to falsify documents) but the arrears, though small, were not paid. The borrower sought to stay eviction on the basis of hardship and that a refinance was imminent. In support of this, the borrower tendered what she said was a document from a bank in Fiji and a document from the purchaser’s lawyer as to funds coming to her. However the documents were riddled with grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors and shared some identical errors. The court noted that the borrower’s grammar and punctuation was by no means perfect.

The court was concerned that the documents were falsely created by the borrower and dishonestly tendered. Unsurprisingly the court refused the stay but also referred the case to the authorities as to whether the borrower had committed a criminal offence, attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Scroll to Top