She kept filing. The court kept saying no. Here’s what stacked up
A Western Australian borrower has now lost seven consecutive court challenges trying to stop Westpac Banking Corporation from taking possession of her Como property.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia, in a decision delivered on November 9, 2026, dismissed two fresh applications the borrower filed in October - finding that every ground she raised had already been rejected in earlier rounds of the same case.
The dispute dates to August 2024, when the court granted Westpac a possession order after the bank applied for summary judgment - a ruling without a full trial. That order required the borrower to hand over vacant possession of a unit on Ednah Street in Como. She appealed to the WA Court of Appeal and lost. She applied for special leave to the High Court. That failed too.
In February 2026, the court issued what’s known as a property seizure and delivery order - essentially, an enforcement warrant that allows the Sheriff to physically carry out the possession order. The Sheriff’s Office executed it the following month, in March 2026.
None of that stopped the borrower from filing again.
Seven decisions and counting
The two October applications both asked the court to cancel the enforcement warrant under Western Australia’s Civil Judgments Enforcement Act. The grounds were familiar territory.
The borrower’s lead argument was that Westpac’s debt had been "fully repaired and discharged." She pointed to a letter dated August 26, 2026 from Westpac’s solicitors, Faculti Lawyers, which she said confirmed the bank no longer had a claim over the property. The court had already dealt with this at length. In the fifth decision in the series, it found the letter "was sent in error, and should be disregarded." The sixth decision found the letter gave the borrower no new basis for relief. This time around, the same conclusion held.
She also argued Westpac had discontinued its claim entirely. The court noted that no notice of discontinuance had actually been filed. That ground, the court said, "has no merit."
The assignment question
A thread running through the litigation has been the borrower’s challenge to the assignment - or transfer - of the mortgage to Pepper Finance Corporation Limited, with Pepper Money Limited noted as an interested party in the proceedings.
The court had already dealt with this directly. In the fifth decision, it found there was "no serious issue to be tried as to whether the Mortgage has been lawfully assigned." Even if the assignment were somehow invalid, the court said, the borrower "would still owe the Plaintiff the amount secured by the Mortgage." It also noted the borrower had no right to be given a copy of the assignment agreement - only notice that the transfer had occurred.
That reasoning held again here.
Same procedural arguments, same result
The borrower also alleged the enforcement warrant had been issued and carried out in breach of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act. The court had already gone through each claimed irregularity across three prior decisions and found nothing wrong with the process.
The court restated its core finding: the possession order was a final order that had been "regularly and formally entered" and was "completely effective unless and until rescinded, altered or amended."
A further ground - that because the debt was satisfied, the enforcement warrant lacked "all lawful foundation" - failed for the same reason as the erroneous-letter argument.
The second October application repackaged substantially the same issues across five grounds, including a request that the court record the judgment as satisfied and enter a formal memorandum of satisfaction - a court record confirming a judgment debt has been paid. The court noted no such memorandum had been filed, and no consent from the party entitled to the judgment had been provided. Each ground was dismissed.
What it means
Both applications were dismissed with no orders as to costs. The borrower filed three supporting affidavits, but the court found they set out "no new facts" and simply re-raised arguments it had "rejected on multiple occasions." Westpac and Pepper opposed both applications but did not file further materials, relying on what was already before the court.
For mortgage servicers and enforcement teams, the case offers a clear example of how Australian courts handle serial applications that rehash already-decided grounds - they get short shrift, even from self-represented borrowers, and particularly once possession has been executed.
