PRESS RELEASE: MICHEAL SANDERSON v BANK OF QUEENSLAND A FIGHT FOR EQUALITY
Michael needs our support. If you are in Brisbane or have friends in the area that want to help let them know. This coming Thursday at 10am on the 23rd of July 2015 Michael Sanderson will front the Brisbane District Court in the next phase of his battle with the Bank of Queensland. The implications of this hearing has ramifications that change the status quo and has the potential to affect all those small defenders that are disadvantaged by the legal system when pursued by the large, rich and powerful.
Too often Banks, Coal Companies, Gas Companies and many other large identities use their disproportional monetary might and influence to bludgeon their victims into submission. The monetarised legal system offers little or no assistance and it would seem are only too willing to dispense with the self-defending litigants as expeditiously as possible.
Michael has been fighting the Bank of Queensland in the court for nearly a year, but came to realise that despite his best efforts as a self-litigant he had little, rather no hope. The technicality, complexity, language and the fact that his opponent is represented by a national corporate law firm made the task impossible. Michael also suffers from a lifelong disability known as dysgraphia which is a further impairment. He asked himself the question, surely if justice was to be the outcome in our adversarial legal system there must be equality between the combatting parties.
After some research Michael discovered a legal principle called “Equality of Arms” that the Australian Attorney General says must be a factor to ensure a fair trial and fair hearing. This principle has significant legal precedent in common law. Next Thursday he will be pleading that in his case there is no “Equality of Arms” and as a consequence there is no possibility of a fair trial or hearing.
To overcome this impasse he is asking the court to defer all matters indefinitely or until he is able to obtain legal counsel that is equal to that of the Bank of Queensland. He is also asking for orders that compel the Bank of Queensland to underwrite the defence as ultimately irrespective of the result, it would have little bearing on the burden of costs.
The rules that govern the court state that “justice is paramount” and all Michael wants is justice.
Here is the evidence that shows how Bank of Queensland engineered Michael's Default. Can you see the figure that seems out of place?
25 Norfolk St.
Sam, Adam and Simstar, this graph is not distorted in any way. It illustrates the extremes of the valuations and makes it very easy to pick the odd man out. It would seem that the banks and receivers can merely dial a valuation and the valuers will custom make one to suit. We have seen similar activity from the group of rating agencies – S&P, Fitch and Moody’s – who gave stellar ratings to destined-to-fail financial products distorting the perception of the market resulting in the GFC.Report
I believe the $900,000 was an overvaluation of the property in order to enable BOQ to advance the company the facility. The mid valuation of $435,000 enabled BOQ to engineer a default on the impaired loan. The low valuation of $200,000 was to justify the sale of the improved property for less than the unimproved capital value.
BOQ would not roll the loan over even though the company had never been late or missed a payment, had no other debts or creditors and was current with ATO and ASIC. The company also had a demonstrated ability to service the facility at normal standard terms and conditions.
Despite its strong fiscal position, the company was unable to refinance via another lender because BOQ had advanced the facility based on the over valuation of $900,000, an increase of 240% on the valuation just over a year prior. When the valuation collapsed and was reduced by 48% to $435,000, the reduction of valuation despite significant improvements, to less than the mortgage of $462,500, made it impossible to refinance via another lender.
The Banks have engineered contracts so they can revalue a property at any time. By lowering their assessed value of a security, thereby raising the loan-to-value ratio and impairing the loan. It is known as a "Non Monetary Default". Even if the valuation is wrong the banks then put you in default. Even if you have made all repayments on time they can still call in the loan. They are contracts engineered to fail. Highly deceptive and unconscionable.Report