Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Galinovic [2026] QDC 71

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Galinovic [2026] QDC 71 PARTIES: AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED ABN 11 005 357 522 (Plaintiff) v CHRISTINA GALINOVIC (Defendant) FILE NO: BD 2054 of 2024 DIVISION: Civil PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 20 April 2026 (ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 20 April 2026 JUDGE: Dann DCJ ORDER: 1. The Defendant’s Application filed 12 March 2026 (CF#49) be dismissed. 2. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the Application on an indemnity basis. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – Civil proceedings in state and territory courts – where the respondent obtained default judgment against the applicant for payment of a judgment debt – where the applicant has applied for the default judgment to be set aside – where the application is made on the basis that the obligation the subject of the default judgment has been satisfied – where the basis of the default judgment being satisfied was the delivery of a promissory note to the Reserve Bank of Australia – whether the actions taken by the applicant warrant satisfaction of the obligation JURISDICTION – STANDING – where an individual purporting to be the applicant in the hearing refused to identify themselves as the defendant in the underlying proceeding during appearances – where the individual was excluded from participating in the hearing for lack of standing Banking Act 1959 (Cth) -- 1 of 8 -- 2 Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth) Currency Act 1965 (Cth) Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 800 Bayly v Westpac Banking Corporation [2020] QCA 148 Contempree v Contempree [2014] NSWSC 945 Tredders Investments Proprietary Limited as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia Proprietary Limited (No 3) [2025] FCAFC 125 COUNSEL: P E O’Brien for the respondent SOLICITORS: Gadens Lawyers for the respondent Introduction [1] In this matter, the plaintiff, the ANZ obtained a default judgment on 12 November 2025 for payment of a judgment debt and for recovery of possession of property at Unit 8, Middlemount Resort, 5 Atkinson Street Middlemount, being lot 8 on Survey Plan 242137, title reference 50849898 (the Property). That judgment was for $368,443.17, which included specified amounts for interest and costs, and for the ANZ Bank to recover possession of the Property1. [2] The defendant, as I understand it, applied to set aside the default judgment. Another judge of this court heard that application and dismissed it on 20 February 2026. [3] The ANZ Bank has applied for an enforcement warrant for possession of the property following the failure to deliver vacant possession and failure to meet the monetary judgment. [4] An application has been filed pursuant to rule 800 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) seeking a stay of the enforcement of the default judgment and an affidavit in support of that application. It is made by some person styling themselves as the plaintiff by counterclaim/original defendant Christina Galinovic 1 Page 16 of SF-2 to the Affidavit of Susan Forrest sworn 9 April 2026. -- 2 of 8 -- 2 but is signed as “‘By Christina All rights reserved’ Christina Galinovic Executor and Sole Beneficiary for Christina Galinovic estate all rights reserved.”. [5] The affidavit is made on oath by someone styling themselves “Christina Galinovic Executor and Sole Beneficiary for the CHRISTINA GALINOVIC Estate”. It sets out: (a) a chronology of steps for how the default judgment was granted; and (b) steps the deponent of the affidavit then evidently took to create and post various documents to various places. [6] The grounds of the application today are that the obligation the subject of the default judgment has been satisfied because performance was tendered to the Reserve Bank of Australia on 27 February 2026 and enforcement of a satisfied obligation would cause irreparable harm to the original defendant. [7] The ANZ Bank contends the basis for the stay is flawed as the judgment has not been met by delivery of a promissory note to the Reserve Bank of Australia. It opposes the application on the basis that it is misconceived, the ANZ Bank is entitled to the benefit of the judgment and the judgment remains unsatisfied. What does the law say ? [8] Rule 800 of the UCPR provides, relevantly that: “(1) A court may, on application by an enforcement debtor: (a) Stay the enforcement of al or part of a money order, including because of facts arising or discovered after the order was made; and (b) Make the orders it considers appropriate, including an order for payment by instalments.” [9] The test to be applied in considering whether to exercise the discretion to grant a stay of the enforcement of the judgment is whether it is appropriate to grant a stay in the particular circumstances of the case and the authority for that position is the decision in Contempree of the Court of Appeal at [20]2. “The person who applies for the stay bears the onus of showing that it is an appropriate case for a stay to be granted.” 2 Contempree v Contempree [2014] NSWSC 945 at [20]. -- 3 of 8 -- 3 Who appeared at the hearing of the application ? [10] This morning on the hearing of the application, the ANZ Bank was represented by Mr O’Brien of counsel and solicitors. Somebody identifying themselves as “By: Christina All Rights Reserved” and using an email address which was [email protected] applied to the registry on Thursday 16 April 2026 at 2.27pm for leave to file an “Outline of argument Application for Stay of Enforcement , response to defendant/respondent’s outline of argument” and that leave was granted. Similarly, there was a request to appear by audiovisual link and that was also granted. [11] Upon entering court this morning and asking for the appearance of the person who was present over the Webex, the person informed the court that she was, “Christina Galinovic, executor and sole beneficiary for the Christina Galinovic Estate,” and refused to identify for the court whether she was, in fact, the defendant in the original proceeding. The court explained to her that in the absence of her confirmation that she was the defendant in the original proceeding, she had no standing to appear on the application. She refused to advise the court whether she was the original defendant in the proceeding and the court had her muted3. [12] The court has had regard to the application and affidavit previously referred to filed in support of the application for the stay, the outline of submissions which the court gave leave to receive last week and the material identified by the ANZ Bank in reaching this decision. Why is it submitted that the enforcement warrant should be stayed ? [13] The application seeks a stay of the enforcement of the default judgment because it alleges the judgment has been met by delivery of a promissory note to the Reserve Bank of Australia. [14] The written outline articulates the question as: (a) whether the tender of a promissory note to the Reserve Bank of Australia (Reserve Bank) pursuant to s 8(d) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, in response 3 These reasons are generated from the transcript. In revising this transcript I note that after I directed that the person be muted the Webex screen in the Court room for the audio line remained current throughout the hearing and determination of the application. -- 4 of 8 -- 4 to an order demanding satisfaction of a sum certain in money, in the alternative to possession, constitutes a bona fide step towards satisfaction sufficient to warrant a stay of enforcement, given the Court’s order was not limited and did not specify any exclusive mode by which the judgment obligation was to be answered. [15] There is a simple answer to that question which is that it is not. [16] Section 8(d) of the Reserve Bank of Australia Act 1959 (Cth) (the RB Act) does no more than confer on the Reserve Bank power to buy, sell, discount and re-discount bills of exchange, promissory notes and treasury bills. [17] It does not mandate or dictate the circumstances in which the Reserve Bank is to exercise that power. It does not oblige the Reserve Bank to act any particular way in any particular circumstance. [18] There is no evidence that the Reserve Bank has accepted the promissory note, let alone accepted it for deposit, discounting and clearing. [19] There is no basis for an approach to construction of the RB Act, based on its overarching object, as is set out in the written submissions. [20] The Reserve Bank’s overarching object is to promote the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia both now and into the future.4 The RB Act provides for the bank to have three boards: the Monetary Policy Board, the Payment System Board and the Governance Board. [21] When regard is had to the provisions of the RB Act conferring the functions of each of those boards, it is apparent that the Reserve Bank’s function, conferred by statute, are to act in the interests of the people of Australia as a whole, not somehow to deal with individuals. [22] Firstly, the Monetary Policy Board’s functions include, for example to determine the monetary policy of the Bank in a way that, in the Board’s opinion, best contributes to 4 S 8AA RB Act. -- 5 of 8 -- 5 price stability in Australia and the maintenance of full employment in Australia; that is apparent from section 9B(1)(a) of the RB Act5. [23] The Payment Systems Board’s functions include to determine the payments system policy of the Bank in a way that, in the Board’s opinion, is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia; that is section 10B(1)(a) of the RB Act6. Payment system policy is a defined term by reference to the Bank’s functions and powers under other pieces of commonwealth legislation, which you can see from section 5 of the RB Act7. [24] The Governance Board’s functions include to determine the Reserve Bank’s polices for the performance of it functions in relation to delivering banking services to the Commonwealth as the Commonwealth’s banker and financial agent and issuing, reissuing and cancelling Australian notes; that is section 10D(1)(b) of the RB Act8. [25] No aspect of its objects promotes the interpretation of its functions as being that it will accept a promissory note it has not sought out, from a borrower in default to a retail bank, thereby preventing the retail bank to take steps to enforce its contracts with its customers. Indeed, were such an argument to be accepted, it would substantially undermine the retail lending system in this country. [26] As to the Bills of Exchange Act 1909, s 89 defined a promissory note. It states: “(1) A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another, signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer. … ” [27] On its face, in any case, the purported promissory note is not in the name of the borrower: the maker is said to be ‘CHRISTINA GALONIVOC Estate’9. It states in type face that it is signed by “Christina Executor and Sole Beneficiary’. There is no signature on the document which would suggest that it has been appropriately signed 5 S 9B(1)(a) RB Act. 6 S 10B(1)(a) RB Act. 7 S 5 RB Act. 8 S 10D(1)(b) RB Act. 9 Page 24 of SF-2 to the Affidavit of Susan Forrest sworn 9 April 2026. -- 6 of 8 -- 6 by the maker. Further, there is a real issue as to whether it is unconditional because various words appear on it which would suggest that it is not. [28] In those circumstances, it is not possible to be satisfied that this is a document which complies with the terms of section 89 of the Bills of Exchange Act so as to constitute a promissory note in the first place. This is a threshold failure of the application. [29] There is nothing in the material which binds the ANZ Bank to accept any promissory note even if one was offered but especially one which is not presented to it, which this one was not. In the absence of agreement, there is nothing that requires the ANZ Bank to accept a promissory note, if indeed the document be a promissory note as payment for the outstanding debt10. Not only is there no evidence of acceptance by the ANZ Bank; the evidence is to the contrary, that the ANZ Bank has not accepted the purported issue of this document to the Reserve Bank as somehow satisfying the obligations owed it. [30] The authorities referred to by the ANZ Bank in its written submissions establish that in these circumstances, such a promissory note is not capable of acceptance. And I note further in the authority which was handed to the court this morning, which is Tredders Investments Proprietary Limited as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia Proprietary Limited (No 3) [2025] FCAFC 125 (Tredders Investments) at 39, there is a simple statement of principle that there is nothing in the Bills of Exchange Act which provides that the making and delivery of a bill of exchange or promissory note operates to discharge or replace an antecedent liability which the creditor has not agreed to. [31] Finally, insofar as the application refers to various other pieces of Commonwealth legislation, the Banking Act, the Currency Act and the New Tax System Act, the arguments as to why those pieces of legislation do not operate in the current circumstances have been fully set out and addressed and dismissed at paragraph 45 to 49 of the Tredders Investments decision. [32] There is evidence on the application that the Bank sent a letter on 13 March 2026 informing the person who they understood to be the defendant that the actions did not have the effect of satisfying the judgment and that they are of no legal force and effect. 10 Bayly v Westpac Banking Corporation [2020] QCA 148 at [35]. -- 7 of 8 -- 7 So much is supported by the decision in Tredders Investments at paragraph 29, where the Full Court has expressly said that in the absence of a relevant legislative provision that a promissory note must be accepted as payment of a debt, it will only have that effect if the creditor has agreed that it should, and plainly here, the ANZ Bank has not. [33] I turn, then, to the exercise of the discretion. I am not persuaded that the delivery of a purported promissory note to the Reserve Bank of Australia, if that is indeed what has, in fact, happened, goes in any way to meeting the judgment debt. Nothing else has been offered to meet the debt owed to the ANZ Bank. [34] I dismiss the application for the stay of the enforcement warrant. [35] In this matter, the ANZ Bank seeks indemnity costs. I am persuaded that this is appropriate in circumstances where it put the applicant for the stay on notice that the activities and arguments that were raised did not satisfy the judgment debt; it would be pursuing the enforcement warrant. The application today has been wholly unsuccessful, and the Bank has incurred further costs in opposing this application. [36] It is ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiffs costs of, and incidental to the application on an indemnity basis. [37] I note you have handed me up a draft order which says the defendant’s application filed 12 March 2026, court filing number 49, be dismissed and the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of an incidental to the application on an indemnity basis. I will sign that draft order and make those orders today, the 20th of April 2026. -- 8 of 8 --