Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Martin [2026] QMC 3

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Martin [2026] QMC 3 PARTIES: CREDIT CORP SERVICES PTY LTD (Plaintiff) V BERND WALTER MARTIN (Defendant) FILE NO/S: M16634/25 DIVISION: Magistrates Courts PROCEEDING: Statement of Claim filed 11 September 2025 Application to Strike Out Claim filed 29 October 2025 Application to Set Aside or Stay Non-Party Disclosure filed 3 November 2025 ORIGINATING COURT: Gympie DELIVERED ON: 10 April 2026 DELIVERED AT: Gympie HEARING DATE: On the papers MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Hughes ORDERS: 1. The Application to Strike Out or Stay Claim is dismissed. 2. The Application to Set Aside or Stay Non- Party Disclosure is dismissed. 3. The Stay of 3 November 2025 is lifted. -- 1 of 9 -- 2 4. If the parties cannot agree on costs: (a) Each party will file and exchange written submissions on costs by 4.00pm on 27 April 2026; and (b) The issue of costs will then be determined on the basis of the material filed and without an oral hearing not before 4.00pm on 27 April 2026. CATCHWORDS: PROCESS – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS – where Application to strike out or stay Claim – where Application to set aside or stay Notice of Non-Party Disclosure – where alleged assignment of debt – where grounds for applications were inadequate pleading, lack of standing and other inadequacies – where pleading of cause of action to be considered in reasonable, realistic and pragmatic way – where material does not lead to inevitable conclusion of lack of standing or no cause of action – where Court required to decide real question of law or fact – where standing to sue arises from purported assignment of debt – where circumstances and supporting documents can support allegations – where procedural fairness requires full hearing – where Claim arguable and not misconceived or without merit – where evidence capable of proving claim – where no basis to not issue Notice of Non-Party Disclosure Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5 Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175 DES v CJR [2022] QDC 154 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62 -- 2 of 9 -- 3 General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Girando v Padbury (1920) 22 WALR 7 Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] QSC 232 NT of Australia v Public Trustee of NT (2001) 165 FLR 42 Pentridge Village Pty Ltd v Capital Finance Australia Ltd [2018] VSC 633 QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd v Lois Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 186 Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky & Ors [2008] QSC 213 Wylie v AMN [2022] QDC 241 SOLICITORS: Piper Alderman for the Plaintiff Defendant in person What are these Applications about? [1] Bernd Martin applied to strike out or stay Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd’s claim against him for $88,860.30 plus interest and costs.1 Mr Martin submitted that Credit Corp lacks standing or failed to establish a cause of action.2 [2] Mr Martin also applied to set aside or stay the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure3 issued by Credit Corp to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.4 What is the background to these Applications? [1] Credit Corp claims ANZ assigned its rights to a debt owed by Mr Martin to ANZ. Both Applications involve the same facts and circumstances.5 To avoid undue delay and expense,6 after the parties filed their material I directed the Applications be heard and determined together and that 1 Application to Strike Out Claim for Lack of Standing filed 29 October 2025. 2 Application to Strike Out Claim for Lack of Standing filed 29 October 2025, [1] – [2]. 3 Notice of Non-Party Disclosure filed 30 October 2025. 4 Application to Set Aside or Stay Non-Party Disclosure filed 3 November 2025. 5 Directions dated 3 November 2025, 6 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5. -- 3 of 9 -- 4 unless either party requested an oral hearing, the Applications would be determined on the papers. 7 Neither party requested an oral hearing. What are the grounds for the Applications? [2] The grounds for Mr Martin’s Applications are that Credit Corp lacks standing, has failed to establish a cause of action and is yet to prove it holds a valid legal assignment from ANZ.8 Mr Martin disputes that ANZ validly assigned any debt owed by him to Credit Corp. How do the Courts approach a Strike Out Application? [3] The threshold to strike out a claim without a full and proper hearing is high. Summary relief to end proceedings early should only be granted in clear cases and with exceptional caution.9 This is to prevent parties being deprived of their right to a hearing: … great care must be exercised to ensure that under the guise of achieving expeditious finality a plaintiff is not improperly deprived of his opportunity for the trial of his case by the appointed tribunal.10 Should the Claim be struck out or stayed for inadequate pleading? [4] Mr Martin averred that Credit Corp’s denials in its pleadings were inadequate and fatal to its case. However, whether or not Credit Corp has properly pleaded a cause of action is to be considered in a reasonable, realistic and pragmatic way: perfection in pleading practice is not an end in itself.11 Rules of Pleading are to be applied with the aim of avoiding undue technicality to facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues in disputes.12 [5] A lack of any cause of action must therefore be very clear. The material facts are readily discernible from the Claim and Statement of Claim:13 (a) Paragraphs 1 and 2 establish standing of the parties as legal entities; (b) Paragraph 3 alleges the credit contract; (c) Paragraph 4 alleges the debt owed under the contract; (d) Paragraph 5 alleges the assignment; 7 Directions dated 13 March 2026. 8 Application to Strike Out Claim for Lack of Standing filed 29 October 2025. 9 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62; Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, [57]; Wylie v AMN [2022] QDC 241, [72]. 10 General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, [10] (Barwick CJ). 11 Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky & Ors [2008] QSC 213, [15] (Daubney J). 12 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 5; Underlining added. 13 Claim and Statement of Claim filed 11 September 2025. -- 4 of 9 -- 5 (e) Paragraph 6 alleges notice of the assignment; (f) Paragraph 7 alleges the amounts not paid; (g) Paragraph 8 alleges the Defendant’s failure to pay; (h) Paragraph 9 alleges the interest payable; and (i) Paragraph 10 particularises calculation of interest. [6] The cause of action is clear: an alleged failure by the Defendant to pay a debt under a credit contract assigned to the Plaintiff. It is clear Mr Martin understands this14 and the nature of the case against him: he has proceeded to analyse and file lengthy material responding to the allegations in the Claim. This included a Defence with assertions about Credit Corp’s conduct, and citing evidence and making submissions to refute the allegations. In doing so, he has shown he understands the case he must meet.15 [7] The filing of the Reply is simply to raise facts and matters in answer to allegations in the Defence. Mr Martin raised allegations of unconscionable conduct, undue influence and breach of duty in his Defence. A Reply is apt only if the Plaintiff intends to admit those allegations. A Reply is not needed to deny those allegations: allegations in the Defence are deemed in issue by force of the Defence. Mr Martin is in no doubt about what is alleged and disputed by Credit Corp. [8] Mr Martin’s Applications and supporting material do not lead to an inevitable conclusion that Credit Corp lacks standing or does not have a cause of action. He knows what is sought, by whom it is sought and why it is sought. [9] The Claim is not to be struck out or stayed for inadequate pleading. Should the Claim be struck out or stayed for lack of standing or other inadequacies? [10] Mr Martin’s Application to strike out also relied upon alleged evidentiary inadequacies and whether the alleged debt was validly assigned.16 It avers that Credit Corp has not proved compliance with statutory requirements, has failed to discharge its burden of proof and did not comply with various debt collection and consumer law guidelines. 17 14 Girando v Padbury (1920) 22 WALR 7. 15 Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] QSC 232. 16 Application filed 11 June 2024, [3] to [11]; Property Law Act 2023 (Qld), s 190. 17 Application Strike Out Claim for Lack of Standing filed 29 October 2025, [3] to [43]. -- 5 of 9 -- 6 [11] If the Court is required to decide a real question of law or fact, then summary dismissal is not appropriate.18 A complex question of law should not be determined on a strike out application. Nor should questions of fact be determined by way of strike out. [12] It is for the Court at a full hearing and upon submissions from the parties to determine the application of section 190 of the Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) and other apposite law to the facts as established. Credit Corp’s standing to sue arises from a purported assignment from ANZ of the alleged debt. [13] Whether the debt has been validly assigned will depend on the terms of the instrument and the particular statute.19 This requires interpreting the instruments of assignment in furtherance of the purpose of the Legislature in enacting the requirements for assignment of the debt. [14] Section 190 of the Property Law Act is not to be read restrictively. On its face the provision would include the rights that the assignor may have had at the time of the alleged assignment to bring a claim against Mr Martin. [15] If Credit Corp’s contentions are correct then the assignment would be effective, subject to an analysis of the terms of the instruments.20 Without making any findings, I am satisfied the circumstances in the Statement of Claim and supporting documents can support allegations of a debt that was properly assigned to Credit Corp. It may be that Credit Corp is ultimately unable to substantiate this, but procedural fairness requires that it be given an opportunity to do so at a full hearing. [16] This is because in an application to strike out, the Court’s role is not to decide the case on the evidence before it, but rather to determine whether an arguable case, taken at its highest, is demonstrated so that a strike out application is either warranted or unwarranted. [17] I note that Mr Martin refutes many of the allegations, and claims the filed evidence supports his version of events.21 However, in an application to strike out I should not consider untested affidavit material filed by the Defendant:22 The existence of disputed material issues of fact is the index case where summary determination on the basis that a proceeding is so 18 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62. 19 QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd v Lois Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 186; NT of Australia v Public Trustee of NT (2001) 165 FLR 42; Pentridge Village Pty Ltd v Capital Finance Australia Ltd [2018] VSC 633. 20 Plaintiff’s Submissions filed 23 February 2026, [9] to [19]. 21 Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 20 October 2025; Supplementary Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 3 November 2025; Supplementary (2) Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 17 November 2025; Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 13 January 2026. 22 DES v CJR [2022] QDC 154, [36]. -- 6 of 9 -- 7 hopeless as to be an abuse of process requires the exceptional caution.23 [18] Although the parties were directed to file supporting Affidavits not exceeding 15 pages and written submissions not exceeding ten pages for each Application,24 Mr Martin filed voluminous material, including multiple copies of the same documents.25 This does not align with the parties’ implied undertaking to the Court and to the other parties to proceed in an expeditious way.26 It does, however, underscore triable issues of fact and law to be properly determined at a full hearing. [19] The claims and evidence of the parties are yet to be tested. Questions of fact and law, including whether the debt is owed, whether it was validly assigned, compliance by Credit Corp and ANZ with relevant law and guidelines and any other factors that may vitiate any agreement or assignment are properly considered at a full hearing and not dealt with summarily. [20] Mr Martin has himself provided evidence capable of proving the basis of the claim.27 That shows the claim is at least arguable and not misconceived or without merit. [21] It always a very serious step to deprive a party of a cause of action without a hearing on the merits, and ‘extreme care’ must be taken before doing so. Mr Martin’s applications included a myriad of material that has no bearing on the issues. This is perhaps understandable where Mr Martin is not legally represented. However, the Court’s resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings.28 Because of this, it is in the interests of justice that Credit Corp and Mr Martin have the opportunity to fully ventilate real issues at a full hearing. [22] Even if Mr Martin’s material about the real issues is correct, I am not satisfied that Credit Corp’s Claim is so baseless as to be misconceived and without merit such that it should not be considered and determined at a full hearing. Credit Corp’s claim, including standing to bring the claim, is not without substance and at least arguable. Summary dismissal should not be granted simply because a plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on an issue of fact.29 23 Wylie v AMN [2022] QDC 241, [72], citing General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125. 24 Directions dated 29 October 2025 and 3 November 2025. 25 Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 20 October 2025; Supplementary Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 3 November 2025; Supplementary (2) Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 17 November 2025; Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 13 January 2026. 26 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5. 27 Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 20 October 2025, Exhibits A to E; Supplementary Affidavit of Bernd Walter Martin affirmed 3 November 2025, Exhibit U; Defendant List of Issues filed 13 January 2026, Exhibits A to E. 28 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217. 29 Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118. -- 7 of 9 -- 8 [23] Because there is evidence capable of proving the claim, Credit Corp’s claim is arguable and not misconceived or without merit. Credit Corp should be allowed to pursue its claim with its evidence to a full hearing. Of course, it is a matter for the Court at the hearing whether to accept that evidence and conclude that the debt is owed and has been validly assigned. [24] It is in the interests of justice that the parties have the opportunity to ventilate these issues at a full hearing. This will allow the parties to have an opportunity to present their case, rather than bringing the case to an end without allowing them that opportunity. [25] Only in a plain and obvious case should an order be made to strike out. This is not that case. [26] The Claim is not to be struck out for lack of standing or being misconceived, unmeritorious, lacking in substance or an abuse of process. Should the Court set aside or stay the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure? [27] Mr Martin rightly conceded that his Application to set aside or stay the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure is otiose should his Application to strike out not succeed.30 [28] The Non-Party Disclosure was stayed pending determination of Mr Martin’s Application to Strike Out.31 That Application has been wholly unsuccessful. Mr Martin has not established any basis for the Notice of Non-Party Disclosure to not issue. [29] The Application to Set Aside or Stay Non-Party Disclosure is dismissed. What should the Orders be? [30] The Application to Strike Out or Stay is refused. [31] To ensure procedural fairness, I will make Directions about costs arising from these findings [32] The Orders are: 1. The Application to Strike Out or Stay Claim is dismissed. 2. The Application to Set Aside or Stay Non-Party Disclosure is dismissed. 3. The Stay of 3 November 2025 is lifted. 4. If the parties cannot agree on costs: 30 Supplementary Affidavit affirmed 3 November 2025, [34]; Submissions In Support Of Application To Set Aside Or Stay Non-Party Disclosure dated 3 November 2025, [2], [22], [43], [47]. 31 Direction 2 dated 3 November 2025 -- 8 of 9 -- 9 (a) Each party will file and exchange written submissions on costs by 4.00pm on 27 April 2026; and (b) The issue of costs will then be determined on the basis of the material filed and without an oral hearing not before 4.00pm on 27 April 2026. -- 9 of 9 --