In Westpac Banking Corporation v Cahill [2024] WASC 246 - another pseudolaw claim - the Court states
[29] In response to the Applications, the defendant filed a number of documents on 5 June 2024, as follows:
(a) Document titled 'AFFIDAVIT: Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under "CORAM" Jurisdiction of actor pretending to be a Judge under Chapter III Constitution Sitting in Sedition and Treason', affirmed by the defendant on 4 June 2024, which seeks to challenge the validity of the Application, the affidavits and documents filed by the plaintiff, and the court's authority and jurisdiction;
(b) Document titled 'Defendant's Challenge to Jurisdiction of the Court', which also seeks to challenge the court's jurisdiction;
(c) A copy of the chamber summons to strike out the defence and to enter summary judgment annotated and stamped 'Dog‑Latin', 'Legal‑Fiction', 'Counterfeit', 'This Instrument is Defective' and 'This Instrument is not Understood', amongst others;
(d) Further document titled 'Lawful Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, District Court of Western Australia and Magistrate Court of Western Australia' and the rules of those courts; and
(e) Document titled 'Lawful Notice' which, amongst other things, states that the Property is on the market and disputes the validity of the contract and claim.
In response
[47] I have considered the Defence and the materials filed by the defendant. They make little if any legal sense. Much of what the defendant says and seeks to rely on are not matters recognised by the law that I must apply in determining the Applications.
[48] The Defence filed by the defendant does not disclose any reasonable defence or matters which substantiate an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim. It includes contentions that the plaintiff has no right to enforce the Loan Agreement, Line of Credit or the Mortgage, and that this court has no jurisdiction and no power or authority to make the orders sought.
[49] The Defence makes a number of assertions which have been described, in other decisions of this court, as 'pseudo-law' and are largely nonsensical. The materials contain broad allegations to the effect that the plaintiff engaged in fraud, did not act in good faith and has been deceptive. No facts are pleaded to support those contentions.
[50] The defendant also makes statements to the effect that, because the plaintiff is a 'Dead Corporation' and has not provided 'the Genuine Binding Financial Agreement signed in wet ink', it cannot bring its claim.
[51] The evidence adduced by the plaintiff includes what are deposed to as being true copies of the Loan Agreement and Mortgage signed by the defendant and the terms and conditions that apply to them. As the Court of Appeal stated in Connell v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, it is sufficient for a bank to produce what is deposed to be a true copy of the original loan agreement signed by all parties to the agreement, without producing 'a wet‑ink signed' document.
[52] The defendant has not filed any affidavit evidence or submissions in response to the Applications that indicate there is any merit to the matters stated in the Defence. The assertions in the material filed by the defendant have no legal or evidentiary basis. They seek to challenge the court's jurisdiction and draw on matters that have been described as 'pseudolaw', as referred to. They have no basis in law and are without merit.
