This was an application by the borrowers to set aside a judgment entered by consent in 1999 which they say they were tricked into signing by CBA. After the properties were sold the balance owing was $1.4million.
The Court rejected the borrowers’ argument because:
- There is a public interest in the finality of litigation and the borrowers could not point to a change in circumstances since judgment;
- The borrowers’ claim that CBA had written off the money and therefore there was nothing owing at the time the judgment was executed was ‘wrong in law, unsupported by the facts and hopelessly confused;
- The borrowers knew the amount was written off prior to consenting to the judgment;
- The borrowers had legal representation throughout the proceedings and at the time of the consent;
- There would be no utility in such an order as the security properties had been sold.