WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION -v- FARRANT [2026] WASC 253

[2026] WASC 253 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL CITATION : WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION -v- FARRANT [No 2] [2026] WASC 253 CORAM : GETHING J HEARD : 22 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 22 JUNE 2026 PUBLISHED : 23 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : CIV 1316 of 2023 BETWEEN : WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Plaintiff AND MEHRZAD FARRANT Defendant Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Enforcement of judgments - Whether property seizure and delivery order irregular on the basis that it did not specify the time within which it had to be complied with Legislation: Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) s 95, 96, 98, 105 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 42 r 3 -- 1 of 6 -- [2026] WASC 253 Page 2 Result: Application dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : Ms C M Guy Defendant : In Person Solicitors: Plaintiff : Thomson Geer - Perth Defendant : In Person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Broadway Pty Ltd v Lewis [2012] WASC 373 Carrafa v Chaplin, in the matter of the bankrupt estate of Michael Chaplin [2019] FCA 415 Farrant v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] WASCA 157 Lloyd Price Carnarvon Pty Ltd v Avon Plastics Pty Ltd 20 August 2013 [2013] WADC 134 Public Trustee v O'Sullivan [2025] WASC 108 Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [2024] WASC 300 -- 2 of 6 -- [2026] WASC 253 GETHING J Page 3 GETHING J: (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 22 June 2026 and has been edited to correct grammar and infelicities of language and to include full references to relevant evidence and authorities). 1 By application filed 5 June 2026, the Defendant, Mehrzad Farrant, seeks an order setting aside a Property Seizure and Delivery Order (PSDO) issued on 25 February 2026 by a registrar of this court (Application). The PSDO orders the seizure of a property on Ednah Street in Como, which is the defendant's residence (Property). The Plaintiff is the Westpac Banking Corporation who has now enforced its mortgage over the Property. 2 In support of the application, the Defendant filed an affidavit sworn 5 June 2026 and amended submissions filed 19 June 2026 (Defendant's Submissions). 3 The Plaintiff relies on the affidavits filed to date in the action. The Defendant objected to this course of action, saying the Plaintiff required leave to do so. It does not. 4 The order which the PSDO enforces is an order for possession made by Acting Master McDonald on 29 August 2024 on the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The order is in the following terms (Possession Order):1 The defendant deliver up to the plaintiff vacant possession of the property known as Unit 1, 8 Ednah Street, Como WA 6152 (also referred to as 1/8 Ednah Street, Como WA 6152) which is more particularly described as Lot 1 on Strata Plan 30692 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2067 Folio 841. 5 The Defendant's appeal against the decision of the Acting Master failed,2 as did an application for special leave to the High Court.3 6 The PSDO was executed by the Sheriff's Office on 25 March 2026. 7 The basis of the application is that: 1 Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [2024] WASC 300 (2024 Decision). 2 Farrant v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] WASCA 157 (2024 Appeal). 3 Farrant v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] HCA Disp 59. -- 3 of 6 -- [2026] WASC 253 GETHING J Page 4 The Applicant seeks an Order that sets aside the property Seizure and Delivery Order issued on 25 February 2026 by Registrar Hosking in breach of ORDER 42, RULE 3 of the Supreme Court under section 105 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004. 8 The Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (CJEA) s 105 sets out the powers of the court where there has been an irregularity in an order made under that Act. Specifically, it provides: If the court that made an order under Part 4 or 5 or section 101 is satisfied that an irregularity has occurred in connection with the making or carrying out of the order, the court may make any order needed to correct the irregularity including an order — (a) that sets aside the order or an act done under the order; (b) that requires the restitution of property or the payment of money, compensation or damages. 9 The PSDO is an order made under Part 5, so it is an order to which CJEA s 105 applies. 10 The breach is said to be of Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) O 42 r 3. That rule provides: Every judgment or order requiring any person to do any act, other than the payment of money, shall state the time, or the time after service of the judgment or order, within which the act is to be done. 11 In the Defendant's Submissions, she asserts the PSDO does not comply with O 42 r 3, as it lacks 'the specific timeline for compliance'. The Defendant says, in effect, that this error compounds the same error made in what I have termed the Possession Order, which likewise does not specify a time for compliance. 12 The issue of whether the Possession Order complied with O 42 r 3 was considered by Solomon J in an ex tempore decision delivered on 26 March 2026. This was on an application for a suspension order by the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the Possession Order could not be legally enforced because it did not contain a time stipulation. His Honour dismissed the application, noting on this point that the orders were the subject of an appeal that was dismissed.4 I respectfully agree. The Defendant cannot now challenge any aspect of the merits of the decision of the Acting Master. She cannot now complain that the Possession Order was defective or otherwise unenforceable. 4 Transcript 26 March 2026, p 31. -- 4 of 6 -- [2026] WASC 253 GETHING J Page 5 13 That leaves the issue of enforcement of the Possession Order, specifically whether the PSDO is irregular. 14 The PSDO, as I have mentioned, was issued by a registrar. Pursuant to RSC O 46 r 2, a registrar has jurisdiction to order the issue of a property seizure and delivery order pursuant to CJEA s 95(1). The usual practice of the court is that these orders are made ex parte on the papers. There is nothing in the CJEA which requires there to be a hearing prior to the issue of a property seizure and delivery order. 15 A property seizure and delivery order pursuant to CJEA s 95 should not be sought at trial or summary determination prior to judgment having been obtained. Rather, as occurred in this case, an order for possession should be sought at trial or summary determination. As a matter of practice, a property seizure and delivery order is ordinarily not sought until the judgment debtor has been given an opportunity to comply with the order of possession.5 This is in part because the failure to comply with the property seizure and delivery order constitutes a contempt of court.6 However, this is a matter of practice as opposed to a legal requirement of either the RSC or CJEA. Be that as it may, the 18 months between when the Possession Order was made on 29 August 2024 and when the PSDO was applied for on 23 February 2026 was an ample opportunity for the Defendant to have complied with the Possession Order. 16 The PSDO was issued pursuant to the CJEA s 95. CJEA s 96 sets out the effect of a property seizure and delivery order. For real property, the Sheriff 'using any force and assistance that is reasonably necessary in the circumstances, may…enter the property and evict from it any person who is not lawfully entitled to be on the property'. The only limitation on the power is that it may only be exercised by between 9 am and 5 pm.7 17 There is no requirement in the CJEA for the Sheriff to serve a property seizure and delivery order on a judgment debtor prior to it being executed. It is the practice of the Sheriff to provide some notification that its office proposes to execute a property seizure and delivery order. As Ms Guy deposes in her affidavit of 24 March 2026, that was what occurred in this case. However, again, this is a matter of 5 Broadway Pty Ltd v Lewis [2012] WASC 373 [153] - [158] (Pritchard J); Lloyd Price Carnarvon Pty Ltd v Avon Plastics Pty Ltd 20 August 2013 [2013] WADC 134 [26] - [27] (Gething PR); Carrafa v Chaplin, in the matter of the bankrupt estate of Michael Chaplin [2019] FCA 415 [15] - [16] (Colvin J). 6 CJEA s 98. See for example: Public Trustee v O'Sullivan [2025] WASC 108. 7 CJEA s 96(2). -- 5 of 6 -- [2026] WASC 253 GETHING J Page 6 ordinary practice. It is not a requirement of the CJEA. To use the language of O 42 r 3, the 'time within which the act is to be done' in the context of a property seizure and delivery order is clear, and in this case was clear. The Defendant was required to give up possession of the Property immediately upon the sheriff entering the Property. 18 There was no irregularity in the PSDO. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CC Associate to the Hon Justice Gething 23 JUNE 2026 -- 6 of 6 --