Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ellis
[2013] QDC 235
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ellis[2013] QDC 235
- Add to List
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ellis[2013] QDC 235
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ellis[2013] QDC 235
[2013] QDC 235
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 3832 of 2012
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIAPlaintiff
and
JOHN MICHAEL ELLIS
and SHELLEY ANN ELLISDefendants
BRISBANE
MONDAY, 22 JULY 2013
JUDGMENT
CATCHWORDS | Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 913(2) Leave to mortgagee to serve enforcement warrant for possession where the [house] of occupation by the defendants [s] and [children] are unclear |
HIS HONOUR: This is Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ellis & Anor 3832 of 2012. There’s an application made by the plaintiff bank proposed to be dealt with without an oral hearing seeking leave under rule 913, sub-rule (2), to issue an enforcement warrant for possession of certain mortgaged premises. The bank has on the 12th of November 2012 obtained from the registrar default judgment against both defendants for a sum in excess of $300,000, and, in addition, an order for recovery of possession of the premises against the first defendant. The plaintiff has not recovered possession, notwithstanding various time indulgences offered. This application is made in the circumstances of some confusion as to the basis on which the property is presently occupied.
Lawyers representing the second defendant have indicated that he and the children of him and the first defendant reside in the premises as tenants, the defendants themselves having been separated for some considerable time. The plaintiff has never consented to any tenancy. The existence of a tenancy or like arrangement, however, requires that the leave of the court for issue of an enforcement warrant be obtained. So, too, does section 317 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 play a role by requiring the plaintiff to give notice of its intention to obtain actual possession. Corresponding earlier legislation was considered in Pioneer Mortgages Limited v Uribe (2005) QDC 316.
It is appropriate that the order sought be made. One feature of it is that the second defendant and any other occupants of the property be made responsible for the plaintiff’s costs. Order as per initialled draft.
______________________