WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION -v- FARRANT [2026] WASC 305

[2026] WASC 305 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL CITATION : WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION -v- FARRANT [No 3] [2026] WASC 305 CORAM : GETHING J HEARD : 22 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 3 AUGUST 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 no leave was granted to enforce a conditional order - It did not specify the time within which it had to be complied with Legislation: Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) s 95, s 96, s 98, s 105 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 42 r 3 -- 1 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 Page 2 Result: Application dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : Ms C Guy Defendant : In Person Solicitors: Plaintiff : Faculti Lawyers Defendant : In Person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529, 530 Brookfield v Yevad [2004] FCA 1164 Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34 Cabassi v Vila [1940] HCA 41; (1940) 64 CLR 130 Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2020] WASCA 208 De Lasala v De Lasala [1980] AC 546 DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17 (2000) 201 CLR 226 Farrant v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] WASCA 157 Farrant v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] HCA Disp 59 Frigger v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 39 Gamser v Nominal Defendant [1977] HCA 7; (1977) 136 CLR 145 Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298 Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363 Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2005] WASCA 217 Lee v Lawfirst Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 166 McCleary v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1998) 157 ALR 301 Orchard Holdings Pty Ltd v Paxhill Pty Ltd as trustee for Paxhill Trust trading as Property People [2012] WASC 271 (S2) Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 24 NSWLR 691 Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [2024] WASC 300 Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 2] [2026] WASC 253 -- 2 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 3 GETHING J: Introduction 1 This decision is the latest in a series by which the Defendant, Mehrzad Farrant, seeks to stop the Plaintiff, Westpac Banking Corporation, from enforcing its mortgage over her property on Ednah Street in Como (Property). On 29 August 2024 Acting Master McDonald made an order for possession 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. 2 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 3 A Property Seizure and Delivery Order (PSDO) issued on 25 February 2026 by a registrar of this court to give effect to the Possession Order. The PSDO was executed by the Sheriff's Office on 25 March 2026. 4 On 22 June 2026, I dismissed an application by the Defendant pursuant to Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (CJEA) s 105 to set aside the PSDO as being irregular (June Decision).4 In particular, I decided that the PSDO did not breach Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) O 42 r 3. The Defendant was required to give up possession of the Property immediately upon the sheriff entering the Property.5 5 The Defendant has made three other applications in relation to the enforcement action taken against the Property which are yet to be determined: (a) a chamber summons dated 10 April 2026 (10 April Application); 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. 4 Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 2] [2026] WASC 253 (June Decision). 5 June Decision [17]. -- 3 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 4 (b) an application for a suspension order filed 20 May 2026 (20 May Application); and (c) a further application to set aside the PSDO, filed 29 June 2026 (29 June Application). In support of her application, the Defendant relies on affidavits she filed on 10 April 2026, 11 May 2026, 20 May 2026, 21 May 2026, 29 June 2026 and 20 July 2026. 6 The Plaintiff was content to rely generally on the affidavits and submissions it has filed to date. 10 April Application 7 The first ground of challenge set out in the 10 April Application is that the Possession Order grounding the PSDO did not specify a timeline for delivery of vacant possession as required by RSC O 42 r 3. 8 In the June Decision I said:6 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… 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. 9 I reiterate that the Possession Order is a final order that has been regularly and formally entered. It is 'completely effective unless and until rescinded, altered or amended'.7 The general rule is that final orders regularly and formally entered can only be challenged on appeal or in proceedings to set aside the judgment for fraud (which I address later in these reasons).8 So any challenge to the Possession Order on the basis of invalidity, unlawfulness or unenforceability must be made 6 June Decision [12]. 7 Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363 [25] (the court); Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2020] WASCA 208 [208] (Chang). 8 Frigger v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 39 [26] (the court) (Frigger); Chang [221]. -- 4 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 5 to the Court of Appeal.9 The Possession Order cannot be set aside by a Justice of the General Division on any of these grounds.10 10 The second to fifth grounds are in the following terms: 2. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION to produce the Original Mortgage Note [L684005] in wet ink and the Original Promissory Note in wet ink. Collection activities such as Application for Property Seizure and Delivery Order filed by WESTPAC BANKING CORPPORATION on 23/Feb/2026 was unlawful and in breach of UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 which are established as FACTS IN LAW and enforceable by International Commercial Laws since 10 April 2025. Collection activities on all financial instruments including Mortgages co-mingled with Birth-Certificate securities collateralisation of the Living was made unlawful after 10 April 2025. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION was served with a LAWFUL DIRECTIVE on 24 March 2026 to produce the Original Mortgage and the Original Promissory Notes in wet ink, and Lawful Assignment and Authority over the Living if it has been operating lawfully and had not been involved with Birth certificate-based financial fraud, under sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, with 30 day rebuttal window ending 23 April 2026 or Cease and Desist its claim over the Defendant's Property at 1/8 Ednah Street, Como, 6152, WA. 3. The Property Seizure and Delivery order to be repealed, rescinded and discharged; WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION'S failure to produce documents outlined in the LAWFUL DIRECTIVE dated 24 March 2026 will be proof for dishonour; involvement in Birth-Certificate Securities Collateralization financial fraud and its unlawful claim. 4. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION rebuttal and response failing to cure UCC-1 filing #2025023588 are subject to Misprision of Fraud and Felony and 3x RICO charges. 5. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION to recompense the Defendant with all incurred monetary losses and trauma and emotional distress that its unlawful claim and the Seizure and Delivery Order has caused, where it has breached duty of care, causing tangible financial losses and immense psychological and 9 Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529, 530 (Barwick CJ); Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34 [15] (Gummow ACJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). 10 Orchard Holdings Pty Ltd v Paxhill Pty Ltd as trustee for Paxhill Trust trading as Property People [2012] WASC 271 (S2) [10] (Allanson J). -- 5 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 6 emotional distress in the past three and half years to the Defendant. 11 The Plaintiff is under no legal obligation to produce any further documents to the Defendant. So the non-production of documents is not a basis to set aside the PSDO. This issue was also considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal.11 12 As to the ground in paragraph 4, I read this (generously to the Defendant) to be an assertion that the Possession Order should be set aside on the grounds of fraud. 13 A judgment which was apparently regularly obtained may be impeached on the ground that it was obtained as a result of a fraud.12 This may be done in one of three ways. The first is to commence a separate action to set aside the judgment.13 The second is that the assertion that the judgment was obtained by fraud may be raised in an appeal.14 The third is that an application may be brought to set aside the order in the original action.15 14 The preferable approach is for the party alleging fraud to commence a separate action to set aside the judgment.16 As to this, in Jonesco v Beard Lord Buckmaster observed that:17 It has long been the settled practice of the Court that the proper method of impeaching a completed judgment on the ground of fraud is by action in which, as in any other action based on fraud, the particulars of the fraud must be exactly given and the allegation established by the strict proof such a charge requires. 15 However, Lord Buckmaster did recognise that there is a jurisdiction to set aside a judgment for fraud on a motion for a new trial 11 2024 Appeal [32]. 12 Gamser v Nominal Defendant [1977] HCA 7; (1977) 136 CLR 145, 154 (Aickin J); DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17 (2000) 201 CLR 226 [36] - [37] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); [189] (Callinan J) (DJL); Frigger [26]; Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2005] WASCA 217 [125] - [135] (the court) (Lashansky). 13 DJL [36] - [37]; McCleary v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1998) 157 ALR 301, 327 (Ipp J, with whom Malcolm CJ and Franklyn J agreed) (McCleary); Cabassi v Vila [1940] HCA 41; (1940) 64 CLR 130, 147 (Williams J); Lashansky [125] - [135]; Brookfield v Yevad [2004] FCA 1164 [22] (Lander J) (Brookfield). 14 De Lasala v De Lasala [1980] AC 546, 561 (PC); McCleary (327). 15 Brookfield [22]. 16 DJL [37]; Frigger [26]; Lashansky [135]; McCleary (327). 17 Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298, 300 (Lord Buckmaster with whom Viscount Dunedin & Lord Warrington of Clyffe agreed) (Jonesco). -- 6 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 7 within the existing action,18 that is, the third option set out at [13]. His Lordship continued:19 If, however, for any special reason departure from the established practice is permitted, the necessity for stating the particulars of the fraud and the burden of proof are no whit abated and all the strict rules of evidence apply. The affidavits used must, therefore, be examined as on final trial; every particle of hearsay evidence and reference to documents, not produced, must be excluded, and it must be kept constantly in mind that the rules which permit, on interlocutory proceedings, hearsay evidence, where the exact source of the information is afforded, have no more application than they would possess were the deponent a witness in the box speaking at the trial. 16 In Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Handley JA referred to these comments by Lord Buckmaster and went on to say:20 The need referred to by Lord Buckmaster in Jonesco v Beard when departure from the established practice is permitted to state with the same clarity and specificity the particulars of the fraud relied upon means that a departure from the practice should not be allowed except in the simplest of cases. Where such an action is brought after trial the statement of claim (or summons in the Commercial Division) must allege facts which establish that the plaintiff has reasonable prospects of success. This requires the plaintiff to plead that since the judgment he has discovered fresh facts which alone, or in combination with previously known facts, raise a serious question to be tried. The statement of claim must also allege that the party entitled to the benefit of the judgment was responsible for the fraud … 17 Ordinarily, the application in the existing action alleging fraud would be made to the judicial officer who made the order. However, as this is not possible for Acting Master McDonald, I am of the view that any Justice of the General Division may exercise this power. 18 So, in fairness to the Defendant as a litigant in person, I will consider whether there should be, in effect, a further hearing (preceded by pleadings or other formal particularisation of the fraud) in this action to address her allegation that the Plaintiff procured the Possession Order by fraud. However, where the application is brought in the 18 Jonesco 301. 19 Jonesco 301. 20 Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 24 NSWLR 691, 700 (Handley JA with whom Clarke JA agreed, as did Mahoney JA who made similar observations at 693). -- 7 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 8 original action, the court can summarily dismiss the application at least where there is no substance in any of the allegations of fraud.21 19 As to whether there is any substance in the allegations of fraud made by the Defendant, she refers to fraud by the Plaintiff and the 'UCC' at various points in her affidavit of 10 April 2026: 7. I, the Affiant, a Living Woman, declare that I stand in honour and Peace and in full alignment under Natural and Commercial Law, as affirmed by unrebutted public record. I cite lawfully filed UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 contained in Affidavit of Fact and Restoration of Lawful Record #2025044106 held under the superior jurisdiction of HONOR AND TRUST UNINCORPORATED PRIVATE TRUST filing #2025023573, established under Abrahamic Law and Covenant authority which recognises the Living NOT the Corporate Fictions. All unlawful claims upon my person, property and life arc hereby rebutted. Compelled performance is now required from any party acting in dishonour. … 9. I, the Affiant, filed an Application with supporting affidavit for Suspension of the seizure and delivery order immediately and brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of WA that any continued actions taken by WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, after 9 April 2025, to foreclose my property at 1/8 Ednah Street, Como, 6152, WA, constitutes Wilful Act of Fraud, Commercial dishonour, and knowing violation of lawfully filed UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 contained in Affidavit of Fact and Restoration of Lawful Record #2025044106 filed under HONOR AND TRUST UNINCORPORATED PRIVATE TRUST filing #2025023573 recorded in public domain. … 12. During the Hearing of my Application for Suspension of the Seizure and Delivery order which took place on 26 March via Audio link after the eviction had already occurred on 25 March, the Judge repeated that he did not understand what I had endorsed as Facts in my Affidavit because they were confusing and refused to grant any kind of Suspension Order or to reverse the Seizure and Delivery Order. My affidavit to the Supreme Court was very clear and in details of the UCC filings under International Commercial Law and Facts in law since 10 April 2025; however, the Supreme Court DID NOT want to 21 Lashansky [135]. -- 8 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 9 acknowledge the Law. 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' is a foundational legal principle across most jurisdictions, meaning that not knowing or understanding a law does not exempt anyone - including citizens, public officials, and even judges - from liability for violating it. 13. I bring your attention to the fact that WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION over the last Three and half years has refused to produce the Original Mortgage Note [No:L684005] because it has been unable to, and despite my efforts to defend myself and my home at the Supreme Court of WA and at the Supreme Appeal Court of WA and at the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA, none of the institutions acknowledged my valid and lawful concerns over the conducts of WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, and my defence was rejected unanimously and unjustly despite the Plaintiffs breach and violation of s. 371[1 ][2C][4][7] of the Criminal Code Act 1913 WA, in relation to the Original Mortgage Note [No:L6840005]. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION's unlawful and unauthorized sale and trade with the Original Mortgage Contract Deed [No: L684005] by wrongful exploitation and conversion of it to its own use unlawfully and unconstitutionally in fraudulent securitization process with investors for profit without the Affiant Element of Acceptance, consent or knowledge was not recognised. 14. However, since 10 April 2025, the lawful filings of UCC-1 and UCC-3 instruments are established as Facts in Law w1der International Commercial and Natural Law on the public record, placing all Birth Certificate-based collateral instruments into perfected claim enforcement, under HONOR AND TRUST UNINCORPORATED PRIVATE TRUST, recorded in public domain internationally. Public Notice of the UCC filings and Lawful Redemption Declaration #2025038183 were issued to Departments of Justice and Financial Institutions and Central Banks around the world, establishing an irrevocable claim over all assets, transactions, and derivatives tied to fraudulent financial instruments associated with Birth Certificates which are now enforceable under International Commercial and Natural law. … 16. HONOR AND TRUST UNINCORPORATED PRIVATE TRUST, is established under Abrahamic Law and Covenant Authority, NOT STATUTORY CODE, filed under UCC, which governs all commerce globally and unrebutted, which has established effectively as Fact of Law as of April 10, 2025, the fraud on all Birth Certificates registered for the purpose of securitising and collateralising the commercial energy of people. -- 9 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 10 All institutions globally, holding, trading, or benefitting from fraudulent Birth Certificate Securities which includes WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION are now subject to liens, enforcement, and lawful asset seizures if continuing to benefit from the fraudulent Birth Certificate Securities collateralisation of the Living. The ALL CAPS NAME, the Legal Fiction or Corporate Entity assigned to me, the Affiant, through Birth Certificate is no longer valid, because that which was used for compelled performance is now no longer available to any and all institutions globally including WESTPAC BANKING COPORATION, holding, trading, or benefitting from the fraudulent Birth Certificate Securities collateralisation of the Living. 17. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, therefore, has been served with a Lawful Directive and Notice on 24 March 2026 [AUS POST Tracking #RPP44 63900 05100 46869 24603], to disclose proof of Original wet-ink Promissory Notes, and Original Wet-ink Mortgage Note, and Lawful Assignment and Authority over the Living, in relation to all financial instruments linked and tied to the property at 1 /8 Ednah Street, Como, 6152, WA, including mortgage L684005, derived from fraudulent Birth Certificate securities transactions, whether held, traded, leveraged, or laundered under a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, with 30 day rebuttal window ending 23 April 2026 or Cease and Desist its claim over my Property at 1/8 Ednah Street, Como, 6152, WA, and return unlawfully held value which is enforceable under commercial and natural law now. 18. I demand the Seizure and Delivery Order issued on 25 Feb 2026 be repealed and my Home to be returned back to me. The property at 1/8 Ednah Street in Como has been my Home for the past 27 years. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION has been operating, benefitting and trading with Birth Certificate Securities collateralisation for profit unlawfully which is now a known Fact in Law. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION has been delivered with a Lawful Directive to produce what it MUST if it has been operating lawfully and had not been involved with Birth certificate-based financial fraud. And The Supreme Court has been delivered with my Affidavit of life and Truth signed and sealed on 24 March 2026 and the fact that I am NOT a corporate fiction or surety for any trust, estate or commercial entities created in my name. Any and all references to MEHRZAD FARRANT or similar ALL CAPS constructs are recognised by me as separate commercial entities distinct from my living being. -- 10 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 11 19. The Supreme Court of WA hereby is put on Notice. The Seizure and Delivery Order was unlawfully issued on 25 Feb 2026. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION can NO LONGER have a claim over the Living or any mortgage including mortgage #L684005 comingled with Birth-Certificate Financial Fraud. I hereby demand immediate cessation of any and all collection actions, notices, threats, or attempts to sell my property initiated by WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION or by Order of the Supreme Court of WA, or to compel me to perform under any presumed obligation based on fraudulent financial instruments including mortgage #L684005, which is now claimed under Lawful Redemption Declaration filing #2025038183 filed under HONOR AND TRUST, establishing an irrevocable claim over all assets, transactions, and derivatives tied to fraudulent financial instruments associated with Birth Certificates which are now enforceable under International Commercial and Natural law. 20. The Supreme Court hereby is put on Notice that continued nonenforcement constitutes aiding and abetting known and published fraud. The Property Seizure and Delivery Order was unlawfully obtained by WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, particularly without following mandatory procedural steps, that violates the Rules, bypassing the required, established procedural steps. The Seizure and Delivery Notices were NOT served following correct procedural steps. Notices were not served according to the Court rules, I believe proper process was not followed, and 1 was denied of procedural fairness. Most importantly, the Seizure and Delivery Order was issued after l0 April 2025. A collection activity on behalf of WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION co mingled with fraudulent Birth-Certificate Securities collateralisation of the Living which was officially made unlawful on 9 April 2025. 20 In her affidavit sworn 20 July 2027, the Defendant elaborates on her concerns: 1. Collection Activities on all financial instruments including mortgages co-mingled with Birth-Certificate securities were made unlawful after 10 April 2025 subject to lawful UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 filings under jurisdiction of Commercial and Natural Law. This claim is on public domain and on international record. 2. The Birth-Certificate ALL-CAPS-NAME is established as Known Fraud globally through lawful filings of the UCC-1 and UCC-3. Any agent or financial institution using the Birth- Certificate Name [ALL-CAPSNAME] is a party to the fraud. … -- 11 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 12 5. The legal filing of UCC-1 and UCC-3 effectively has established as fact of law, the fraud on All Birth-Certificates registered for the purpose of collateralization of the commercial energy of people globally. The legal filings have furthermore; established Lawful Notice and irrevocable claim over all assets, transactions, and derivatives tied to fraudulent financial instruments associated with use of Birth-certificate securities. This filing is binding and in full effect as of March 10, 2025. Any attempt to obstruct, or delay or deny its validity constitutes immediate liability. 6. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION used the Defendant's Birth Certificate derived ALL-CAPS- NAME [MEHRZAD FARRANT] on all documents linked to mortgage L684005 including the RAMS Home Loan Agreements and engaged in Birth-Certificate security transactions to provide the Defendant with the finance in relation to Mortgage L684005. 7. Financial institutions globally including WESTРAC BANKING CORPORATION holding, trading, benefiting from Birth- Certificate securities can no longer lawfully benefit from them and can no longer lawfully be involved in collection activities in relation to financial instruments co-mingled with Birth- Certificates securities, including Mortgage L684005. 8. I confirm as I have stated in my Affidavit of Life and Truth filed with the Supreme Court on 15 April 2026, that I reject the ALL- CAPS-NAME [MEHRZAD FARRANT], which identifies me as a financial asset at Birth through the Birth-Certificate. The Birth-Certificate ALL-CAPS-NAME is established as known fraud globally through lawful UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 filings. 9. Therefore, as of 10 April 2025, any continued action taken in foreclosing my property by WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION or its representatives acting on its behalf, constitutes wilful act of fraud, knowingly violating of lawfully filed instruments unrebutted in public record. … 11. The UCC codes of commerce are recognised under Australian Federal commonwealth legislation under AUSFTA Treaty. The UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 filings are in force in the United States and Australia under curtesy of the AUSFTA treaty. The UCC-1 #2025023588 and UCC-3 #2025025325 commercial filings intersect with US-Australia commercial relations through the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement [AUSFTA]. The AUSFTA free trade agreement has been codified and ratified into both the US -- 12 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 13 federal Law and the Australian federal legislation facilitating commercial relations with established rules that allow businesses and individuals from either country to freely operate on each other's soil through commercial codes. 12. The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) is implemented and registered under Federal Commonwealth legislation in Australia. Australian entities have been actively and consistently involved in drafting UCC financial instruments following the implementation of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) on January 1, 2005. The annexures to the affidavit do not have any relevance to, or bearing on, the determination of issues in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. 21 It appears that the acronym 'UCC' refers to the United States Uniform Commercial Code. The United States Uniform Commercial Code has no application in Australia whether as Commonwealth or State law. Given the central reliance on the provisions of the 'UCC', that alone justifies the conclusion that the there is no substance in any of the allegations of fraud. Even under Australian law, there is still no substance in any of the allegations of fraud. The allegations made by the Defendant are so clearly untenable that they cannot possibly succeed.22 22 Ground 5 is remedial and assumes that the PSDO is unlawful. As it is not, this ground falls away. 23 For these reasons, the 10 April Application must be dismissed. 29 June Application 24 As the issue raised in the 29 June Application bears on the determination of the 20 May Application, I will deal with this application next. 25 The 29 June Application seeks to set aside the PSDO on the basis that it does not comply with CJEA s 13(1)(b). That paragraph reads: Leave of the court must be obtained before an order may be made under this Act to enforce a judgment — … 22 Lee v Lawfirst Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 166 [80] (judgment of the court). -- 13 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 14 (b) if the order in the judgment that a person seeks to enforce is subject to the fulfilment of a condition … 26 The Defendant asserts that because the Possession Order did not contain a timeline for compliance, it contained an unfulfilled condition. 27 I disagree. I have quoted the Possession Order in [1]. It is not subject to the fulfilment of a condition. CJEA s 13(1)(b) has no application. The PSDO is not invalid by reason of a failure to comply with CJEA s 13(1)(b). The 29 June Application must be dismissed. 20 May Application 28 The 20 May Application is for a suspension order pursuant to CJEA s 15(1). 29 Pursuant to CJEA s 15(1) a 'person against whom a judgment is given may apply for an order suspending the enforcement of all or part of the judgment to (relevantly) the court that gave the judgment'. By CJEA s 15(3), on such an application, 'the court may only make such an order if there are special circumstances that justify doing so'. 30 The basis for the 20 May Application appears to be that she was notified by a subsidiary of the Plaintiff that it intended to transfer the Home Loan accounts linked to the mortgage over the Property to 'Pepper Money'. This was going to be done before the determination of an applications by the Defendant to set aside the PSDO. However, that application was dismissed by orders made by Acting Registrar Millman on 27 May 2026. So, the basis for the 20 May Application falls away. 31 In oral argument on 24 July 2026, the Defendant said that there is still a need for a suspension order as the validity of the PSDO remains in dispute because of the issue raised in the 29 June Application. Having decided that the 29 June Application should be dismissed, there is now no longer any possible basis for suspending enforcement of the PSDO. 32 The 20 May Application must be dismissed. Subsequent Material Filed 33 On 27 July 2026 Ms Farrant filed a further affidavit in support of the 29 June Application. The affidavit contains nothing further for consideration as it merely repeats what has been provided in earlier affidavits and dealt with either in this decision or the June Decision. -- 14 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 305 GETHING J Page 15 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 3 AUGUST 2026 -- 15 of 15 --