Garrett v Westpac Banking Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Garrett v Westpac Banking Corporation [2007] FCA 439

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary judgment – s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – no demonstrated standing – no reasonable prospect of success

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A(2)
Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth) s 59, s 28(1)
Banking Act 1959 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules O 20

UNCITRAL Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes (1988)

ANDREW MORTON GARRETT v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, TIERNAN WHITE AND CARL ZUBER

No SAD 9 of 2007

FINN J
26 MARCH 2007
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 9 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

ANDREW MORTON GARRETT
Applicant

AND:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
First Respondent

TIERNAN WHITE
Second Respondent

CARL ZUBER
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed with costs. 

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 9 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

ANDREW MORTON GARRETT
Applicant

AND:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
First Respondent

TIERNAN WHITE
Second Respondent

CARL ZUBER
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

26 MARCH 2007

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The respondents in this matter, Westpac Banking Corporation and two of its employees, have moved the Court to have judgment entered in their favour pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in respect of an application brought against them by Andrew Morton Garrett. In the alternative they seek orders that the proceeding be dismissed or stayed pursuant to O 20 of the Federal Court Rules or else that security be provided in respect of their legal costs in the amount of $80,000 and that the proceeding be stayed until that security be given.

  2. The application purports to be bought by Mr Garrett in his capacities variously (i) as trustee of the Andrew Garrett Family Trust (No 3);  (ii) as trustee for Corporate Investments pursuant to a Declaration of Trust dated 31 December 2006;  and (iii) as trustee of the Andrew Garrett Group and Corporate Investments Joint Venture.  It seeks orders that the respondents (i) have breached the duty of care owed to him by a bank to its customer;  (ii) have breached the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth); and (iii) have breached the Banking Act 1959 (Cth). It went on to seek an order that Westpac credit to an account of Andrew Morton Garrett a sum of $11,350,000,000,000 and an order for damages. The application claims by way of interlocutory relief:

    “1.That Westpac give an undertaking as to damages in respect of a arising out of (sic) these proceedings and in particular, with respect to;

    a.Letter of Offer addressed to the Qantas Board dated 2nd of January 2007 to purchase 100% of the Issued Capital of Qantas Ltd. 

    b.Letter of Offer addressed…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Garrett v Westpac Banking Corporation and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] FCA 439
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garrett v Westpac Banking Corporation involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Garrett, and the defendant, Westpac Banking Corporation, concerning a foreclosure of a mortgage on a property. Mr. Garrett argued that the bank had unlawfully foreclosed on his property, and the matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of the bank’s foreclosure process and whether the bank had adhered to the requisite legal protocols in doing so. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the bank had correctly served the necessary notices and if the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with the applicable laws.

The court examined the evidence and found that the bank had properly served the necessary notices and that the foreclosure sale was conducted in compliance with the legal requirements. The court held that the bank had followed all necessary procedural steps and that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the bank. The court dismissed Mr. Garrett's claims and ordered that the application be dismissed with costs. This decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to legal formalities in foreclosure proceedings and reinforced the principles governing the enforcement of mortgage rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FINN J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.