The Supreme Court dismissed ten appeals brought by Angela Farrell, finding that her continued oppressive conduct amounted to an abuse of process and had caused significant prejudice to the bank and other parties.
In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2015, Chief Justice Susan Denham said the appeals had been conducted in a way that harmed the bank and the orderly conduct of court business. The court said the pattern included repeated appeals against procedural directions, failures to comply with directions and security orders, and a failure to file appeal books in an appeal concerning the substantive special summons decision.
The court also found that a motion Farrell brought in the High Court in January 2014 was an abuse of process. She had sought, among other relief, to have proceedings re-entered and to stay a possession order. The High Court refused the relief after hearing both sides. The Supreme Court said the application used significant court time and caused expense to the bank.
The judgment said the secured property had been sold, with the sale process taking account of contingencies arising from the proceedings. It accepted that the bank had incurred significant legal costs connected to Farrell’s conduct.
The court had previously ordered security for costs in most of the appeals, while allowing the appeal against the substantive special summons order to proceed without that requirement. In this judgment, however, it expressly declined to dismiss the appeals for failure to provide security or for delay. It said the pending appeal against Farrell’s bankruptcy might have affected her ability to provide security. Nor did the court dismiss the appeals because of bankruptcy: the adjudication was under appeal and had not been stayed.
The Supreme Court instead concluded that the established abuse, and the reasonable expectation that it would continue, made it proportionate to bring the appeals to an end. It dismissed the ten notices of appeal identified in the judgment. The ruling concerned those appeals and did not decide the pending challenge to the bankruptcy adjudication.