The occupier sought a stay of eviction on the basis that she was tricked into transferring her properties to the borrower, who then mortgaged the properties and the bank participated in the fraud.
The court found no arguable case of fraud on the part of the bank, both in terms of knowledge of any fraud or participation in it and refused the stay.
The court noted the following:
there was no issue that the occupier had signed the transfer and did so in the absence of the bank;
the fact that the bank advanced $2m tended very much against the proposition that the bank knew of and participated in a fraud said to have been perpetrated by the borrower; and
there was no adequate explanation for the delay in seeking a stay.