Abram, Joseph v Bank of New Zealand

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    No. NG 18   of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:JOSEPH ABRAM

Applicant

AND:BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

5 SEPTEMBER 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOCKHART J.
This matter has been specially fixed for final hearing today. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Abram, who appears for himself, sought to challenge the adequacy and sufficiency of the discovery given by the respondent bank; that application developed into an application to adjourn the proceeding so that further documentation could be obtained from the bank by Mr Abram. All applications are opposed by the bank.

Mr Spicer, the bank's secretary, has sworn an affidavit which was read, and he has been cross-examined upon it. Another senior officer, Mr Yeldam, has also given evidence in relation to the issues before the Court.

Because he appears in person, I allowed a considerable degree of latitude to Mr Abram in relation to the course the Court should take in dealing with both the discovery challenge and the adjournment application.

Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that any challenge to the sufficiency of the bank's discovery has been established, and nor am I persuaded that there should be any adjournment in the matter (indeed I see no useful purpose whatever to be served by adjourning the matter). Accordingly, I decline to order any further discovery by the bank or to adjourn the matter. The matter therefore proceeds.

Mr Abram said that, if the matter is not adjourned he is not in a position to proceed. Mr Abram says he is unable to proceed without the material that he would seek to adduce on the discovery which I am not prepared to order.

The bank seeks the dismissal of the proceeding with costs. In my view, that is the appropriate order to make. Accordingly, the proceeding is dismissed and the applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, if any.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lockhart.

Associate
Dated: 5 September 1996

Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondent : Ms N E Abadee

Solicitors for the Respondent : Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing : 5 September 1996

Date of Judgment : 5 September 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Joseph Abram filed a proceeding against the Bank of New Zealand, seeking to challenge the adequacy and sufficiency of the discovery provided by the bank and to adjourn the matter to obtain further documentation. The case was specially fixed for a final hearing, and Abram appeared in person. The bank opposed both applications, and its secretary and a senior officer provided evidence.

The court had to decide whether the discovery provided by the bank was adequate and sufficient and if the matter should be adjourned to allow for further documentation. Justice Lockhart declined to order any further discovery by the bank or to adjourn the matter, finding no useful purpose in doing so. The court was not persuaded that Abram's challenges to the discovery or the adjournment application were valid. The proceeding was dismissed, and Abram was ordered to pay the bank's costs, including reserved costs, if any.

Justice Lockhart's reasoning was based on the evidence provided by the bank's witnesses, the lack of a useful purpose for adjourning the matter, and Abram's inability to proceed without the additional documentation he sought. The dismissal of the proceeding and the order for Abram to pay the bank's costs were deemed appropriate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established