The borrower claimed the court had no jurisdiction over her because she had declared independence from Australia for her properties naming it the Principality of Snake Hill and applying to the UN to be recognised as a country. The trial judge was unconvinced by this argument and granted possession to the bank. The founding mother of Snake Hill then sought leave to appeal to the High Court (“In summing up, it’s the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe”) but was refused leave.
The court also ordered that the borrower and her associates be prevented from placing caveats on the title pending settlement of the bank’s sale. The borrower then brought new proceedings seeking compensation for the loss of her personal goods; loss of legal rights; and compensation for negligence causing nervous shock.
The bank sought orders striking out her claim and the she responded by proposing amendments. The judge, seemingly wanting the farce to continue, and ignoring section 56 Civil Procedure Act (which holds that the overriding purpose of rules of court, in their application to a civil dispute or civil proceedings, is to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the dispute or proceedings) held:
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order that the existing summons be struck out and leave to file the amended summons be refused… I am satisfied, nevertheless, that the borrower must be given an opportunity to put on amended pleadings.