Cameron, D.J. v Westpac Banking Corporation

[1994] FCA 423

9 ~ 3 ~ 97

JUDGMENT NO. .....,....... n. n-.,,

,IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )	No. QG 45 of 1994
GENERAL DIVISION

SLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY 1

BETWEEN:  D A L D JAMES CAMERON

Applicant

AND :  W P A C BANKING CORPORATION

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE -G	ORDEB:	Drummond J
DATE OF ORDES:	28 June, 1994
WHERE:	Brisbane

1.         The applicant's action be struck out pursuant to Order 20, rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules on the ground that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.

2.         The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the motion and the action to be taxed.

KCCE:	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )	No. QG 45 of 1994

T REGISTRY )

- )

BETWEEN: DONAtD JAMES CAMERON

Applicant

AND :  p

Respondent

GQLm:	Drummond J
m&!:	28 June, 1994
ZhGQ:	Brisbane

The applicant in the action has commenced proceedings against Westpac Banking Corporation claiming damages on a number of bases. The pleading is quite obviously not drawn by a lawyer and is, in a number of respects, difficult to understand. But I think the core of what the applicant's complaint is can be discerned. It seems to me

Westpac because he says two officers of Westpac gave false	that what Mr. Cameron is pursuing is a claim for damages from
testimony to the police, to a committing magistrate and, ultimately, to a jury, which resulted in what he says was his wrongful conviction. He successfully appealed this conviction (although he served a substantial term of imprisonment
following his conviction for a related offence). Mr. Cameron has confirmed from the bar table that that is indeed the core
of the case he is seeking to make out against Westpac.
The problems that Mr. Cameron faces in running such a case are manifest when one looks at the decision of the High Court in v (1940) 64 C.L.R. 130 and at the comments of various of the members of the same court in aannarelli v (1988) 165 C.L.R. 543, which confirm that m a s s i remains an accurate statement of the law. By way of example I refer to what Dawson J had to say in Giannarelli at page 595:

"Fundamental to the administration of justice is the opportunity which the law affords to all those who are participants in proceedings in a court to speak and act freely, within the rules laid down, unimpeded by the prospect of civil process as a consequence of their having done so. This privilege against civil liability - for privilege it is - extends beyond the parties and their representatives

to witnesses, the court officials and the judge

himself. As Starke J said in Cabassi v U: 'NO action lies in respect of evidence given by witneaees in the course of judicial proceedings, however false and malicious it may be, any more than it lies against judges, advocates or parties in respect of words used by them in the course of such proceedings or againat juries in respect of their verdicts . . . The law protects witnesses and others, not for their benefit, but for a higher interest, namely, the advancement of public justice."

The privilege which is there referred to extends to protecting a person who provides a witness proof in both civil and criminal proceedings in respect of what he says in that

proof of evidence:  see v ~ibart [l9631 1 Q.B. 523,

particularly at page 535.

Cameron is, understandably in the face of such authority, unable to advance any argument to show how he may

.

still be able to run the case he is seeking to run against Westpac. It seems to me that the only course open in these circumstances is to bring the proceedings to an end now. I will make an order in terms of paragraph l(b)(i) of the notice of motion to the intent that the whole proceeding will now be brought to an end.

I certify that this and the preceding

two pagea are a true copy of the
reasons for judgment herein of the

Honourable Mr. Justice Drummond.

Date:  28 June, 1994