ANZ Banking Group v Jones

[2006] NSWSC 1315

CITATION:	ANZ Banking Group v Jones [2006] NSWSC 1315
HEARING DATE(S):	29 November 2006
JUDGMENT DATE :	29 November 2006
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Campbell J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	11/29/2006
DECISION:	Registrar’s order varied.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE – application for stay of Registrar’s order for discovery pending appeal against Registrar’s order – summary determination of the appeal
PARTIES:	Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited - Plaintiff Michael Gregory Jones (in his capacity as controlling trustee of the bankrupt estate of Stephen Patrick Walsh) - First Defendant Julie Ann Walsh - Second Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2492/06
COUNSEL:	M Cohen - Plaintiff M Condon - Second Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Gadens Lawyers - Plaintiff Holman Webb - Second Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
DUTY JUDGE LIST

CAMPBELL J

WEDNESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2006

2492/06 ANZ BANKING GROUP LIMITED v JONES

JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore

1 HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me on an oral application for a stay of an order for discovery made by a Registrar. The order for discovery required the plaintiff to discover material identified in paragraphs numbered 1, 2 and 3 of a letter of 23 October 2006 from Holman Webb to Gadens. While that application for discovery was made orally to the Registrar, it was argued at the time it was made, the plaintiff did not apply for an adjournment, and the plaintiff lost the application.

2 The application was made at a time when the proceedings had been commenced by a Summons, and there were no other documents to define issues. However, the thrust of the second defendant’s position, as disclosed to the plaintiff at that time, was that there were two loans that had been taken out by herself and her husband, one for $360,000 and one for a larger amount. The second defendant had been of the view that the second loan was a consolidated loan that included the amount of the first loan, and not that it was a separate loan. However, as things turned out, it was, indeed, a separate loan. It is her contention that her mistake, and the fact that no-one corrected her mistake, disentitles the bank from recovering the money from her.

3 There is on foot an appeal against the Registrar’s decision. The stay that is sought orally today is pending the hearing of that appeal.

4 The issue that is involved has been explained to me in the course of the application for a stay. That issue is so simple that it is a waste of everyone's time and money to allow that dispute to continue any longer. In my view, it is appropriate for there to be some discovery, but of a more focussed kind than that ordered by the Registrar.

5 I order that the plaintiff provide discovery to the second defendant within 21 days of the date of this order, of documents described in paragraphs numbered 2 and 3 of the letter from Holman Webb to Gadens of 23 October 2006, deleting from each of those paragraphs the words “lending policies”.

**********