Ennis v Credit Union Australia [2016] FCCA 1705
“The argument described in the material is an “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” and there are, as the respondents submissions point out, a number of hallmarks to that type of approach which are present in the current case. The relevant approach has been described in other cases – and I do not intend in these reasons to go through chapter and verse what that argument entails other than to say that it has been the subject of scholarly explanation in a decision from Canada called Meads v Meads (2012) ABQB 571. The argument and the approach is flawed and cannot succeed for the reasons explained in Meads v Meads. In this application, although Ms Ennis disavows any knowledge of the “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” she does, nonetheless, seek to rely on a case which tends to suggest that she is, in fact, relying on the “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument”.”
Click to access ennis-v-credit-union-australia-2016-fcca1705.pdf
.