Summary judgments were made regarding a mortgage recovery, and as there was no appearance by the defendants, reasons were not pronounced in court and subsequently a request was made for reasons for appeal, which were given in Westpac Banking Corporation v Qin Qin Hou and Savvas Kanakaridis  VSC 330 and Westpac Banking Corporation v Qin Qin Hou  VSC 329.
The applicants appealed these judgments in Hou v Westpac  VSC 606, alleging fraud and lawyer misconduct. The application was dismissed. In Hou v Westpac Banking Corporation  VSCA 57 the appellants further sought to appeal and delay execution of foreclosure, alleging that Westpac could not recover the debts because they have been securitised and assigned. The applicants had also attempted to pay the debt with a promissory note. They had:
“…endorsed letters from Westpac setting out payout figures for the loans with stamps reading ‘BILL OF EXCHANGE’ and ‘NOT NEGOTIABLE’, and with a signed recitation asserting that a payment of the sum of $1 would constitute full and final settlement of the loan account. Receipts from a branch of Westpac for the sum of $1 were attached.”
The court rejected these contentions, noting that:
“The contention that the debts have been paid by the unilateral conversion of letters setting out a payout figure into ‘bills of exchange’ is entirely misconceived. It is hard to believe Mr Kanakaridis could have honestly believed such a transparent device could possibly have any legal effect.”
The applicants also had outstanding debts to the ANZ Bank, the loan agreements which were likewise defaulted on. Kanakaridis v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited and Hou v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited  FCCA 2333 was the reasons for judgment concerning two dismissed applications to set aside bankruptcy notices addressed to the applicants. Some of the grounds rejected were that the Australian judicial systems in Queensland and Victoria are corporate enterprises which have no basis in law, and that the orders made against the applicants by the Supreme Court of Queensland were invalid and unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 is an invalid act as it was purportedly assented to after and as a result of the invalid Australia Act 1986. The application was dismissed as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and their whole action was dismissed for having no real prospects of success.
- https://jade.io/article/388065 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/hou-v-westpac-banking-corporation-2015-vsca-57.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/491164 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/kanakaridis-v-australia-and-new-zealand-banking-group-limited-and-hou-v-australia-and-new-zealand-banking-group-limited-2016-fcca-2333.pdf