Cameron, D.J. v Westpac Banking Corporation Summary

867 J 79

JUDGMENT NO. .....w..wrner rmmw

BETWEEN: DO- JAMES CAMERON

a Applicant

AND : W E S T P A C B A N K I N G
CORPORATION

CORAM:	WI-,	SPENDER h BURCAE!lT JJ	RECEIVFD
PLACE :	BRISBANE
DATE:	7 NOVEMBER	1994	2 1 NOV 1994
FEDERAL WURT OF

AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL

RX REASONS FOR REOI~TRV

WILCOX J: There is before the Court a notice of appeal that calls into question two decisions by single Judges of the Court in relation to separate proceedings. In each case, the Judge ordered that the proceeding be struck out.

The first matter was dealt with by Drummond J in a judgment given on 28 June 1994. The statement of claim then before his Honour was explained in the course of discussion as being designed to allege against the respondent, Westpac Banking Corporation, that two officers of the bank had given false evidence in a criminal proceeding. His Honour discussed the matter with Mr Cameron, the applicant and now appellant, who appeared in person. He indicated to him that, even on the

assumption that the officers had indeed given false evidence

(and, in fairness, I should interpolate that there is no

evidence of this and, indeed, the contrary view was expressed in the Court of Criminal Appeal); but, even on that assumption, the case was covered by two decisions of the High Court of Australia: namely, -bassi v. Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130 and W r e l l i v. Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543. His Honour, in the course of a short judgment, quoted from what Dawson J had

to say in W: in essence, a witness may not be sued

even in respect of false testimony knowingly given. Those decisions are, of course, binding on us. As Mr Cameron conceded in argument this morning, they are an insuperable obstacle for him. Drummond J was plainly correct in the course that he took. The challenge to his judgment must fail.

The second judgment which is challenged was given by O'Loughlin J on 8 September 1994. By that time, the statement of claim on which Mr Cameron relied had been revised. As Mr Cameron pointed out today, that statement of claim makes reference to wrongfully and maliciously instigating

proceedings. The discussion today has revealed that this is

the nub of the case that Mr Cameron seeks to bring against the

bank at this stage. Apparently, the suggestion is that bank officers made false reports to the police and that, as a result of this, criminal proceedings were commenced. Once again, there is no material before us to support those allegations; and, indeed, they are inconsistent with the view expressed in the Court of Criminal Appeal. However, as we pointed out in the discussion to Mr Cameron, the statement of

claim does not make that allegation. Under the heading to which I have referred, the statement of claim merely refers to certain demands for repayment of moneys alleged to have been loaned by the bank to Mr Cameron and which he denies having received.
If it was intended to raise a malicious prosecution case, then the document is simply ineffective for that purpose. O'Loughlin J, in his judgment, expressed the approach which any member of the Court would take, particularly in the case of a litigant appearing in person, namely, to adopt a tolerant view of perceived deficiencies in a pleading. But he pointed out that it was essential that any applicant, even one representing himself, set out in writing the nature of his complaint against the party whom he names as the respondent in such a way that an impartial third party, such as a Judge, may read and understand it. O'Loughlin J said that this was not done in the statement of claim he had to consider.

It seems to me that this comment was eminently justified and that his Honour had no alternative other than to strike out the statement of claim. I would dismiss the appeal in reapect of its challenge to both decisions.
SPENDER .l: I agree.
BURCHETT J: I agree.

WILCOX J: The orders of the Court will be that the appeal be dismissed and the appellant pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment

of the Court.

Associate:

' C e e *

Dated :

7 November 1994

APPEARANCBS

The Applicant:	Appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	J C Sheahan
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Feez Ruthning
Date of hearing:	7 November 1994

The Federal Court of Australia was presented with an appeal from James Cameron, who was challenging the decisions of two single Judges of the Court to strike out his proceedings against the Westpac Banking Corporation. The proceedings were aimed at alleging that two bank officers provided false evidence in a criminal case and wrongfully instigated proceedings against Cameron. Both judges found the claims to be without merit and dismissed the case. Cameron appealed against these decisions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the statements of claim were sufficient to establish a cause of action against the bank and whether the dismissals by the single judges were justified. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the claims of false evidence and malicious prosecution were adequately pleaded and whether the dismissals were appropriate given the deficiencies in the pleadings.

The court found that the claims were not adequately pleaded. In the first case, even if the officers had given false evidence, the claims were barred by the High Court decisions in Bassi v Vila and Wreli v Wraith, which prevent a witness from being sued for false testimony knowingly given. In the second case, although the statement of claim made reference to wrongfully and maliciously instigating proceedings, it did not adequately allege a malicious prosecution claim. The court held that the statements of claim did not sufficiently set out the nature of the complaints against the bank in a manner that could be understood by an impartial third party. Therefore, the dismissals by the single judges were justified.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Cameron pay the bank's costs. The appeal was unsuccessful as the court found that the reasons provided by the single judges for striking out the proceedings were valid, and the claims were not adequately pleaded to establish a cause of action against the bank.

Cameron, D.J. v Westpac Banking Corporation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established