Gradara, Tarcisio v Manager & Staff of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia

[1997] FCA 1034

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG290  of   1997

BETWEEN:	TARCISIO GRADARA APPLICANT
AND:	MANAGER AND STAFF OF THE COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA; WENDY BOLT AND S. BYRNE RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:		MERKEL J
DATE OF ORDER:		1 AUGUST 1997
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG290 of 1997

BETWEEN:	TARCISIO GRADARA APPLICANT
AND:	MANAGER AND STAFF OF THE COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA; WENDY BOLT AND S BYRNE RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:	MERKEL J
DATE:	1 AUGUST 1997
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant has issued a proceeding in this Court under the Crimes Act (1914) (Cth) claiming $3500 and alleging a conspiracy involving the Commonwealth Bank in relation to a cheque that appears to have been drawn in 1984.  The applicant’s basic claim, in various forms, has been made and determined in a number of courts on each occasion for each set of respondents against the present applicant, Mr Gradara.

The claim now made in this Court does not appear, on its face, to raise any cause of action which would normally be within the jurisdiction of this Court although it may, arguably, be based on some cross-vesting jurisdiction.  The case is brought in this Court, it would appear, 13 years after the cause of action has accrued.  The basic claim has been the subject of numerous determinations against the present applicant in other courts.  In my view, the claim is not one which, on its face, is sustainable as a cause of action in this Court.  In the circumstances, the respondents, who have moved that the proceeding be dismissed or alternatively stayed, are entitled to have either of those orders made. 

It is obvious that the applicant does have a grievance which he wishes to be heard.  I can only urge that if the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Bank Ombudsman that that matter be taken up at that level to avoid the apparently fruitless and pointless course of further proceedings in this or any other Court.

I order that the proceeding be dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Merkel

Associate:

Dated:            1 August 1997

Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr McNamara
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Herbert Geer and Rundle
Date of Hearing:	1 August 1997