FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Jarrett v Westpac Banking Corp [1999] FCA 425
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment of hearing – solicitors for party ceasing to act shortly before hearing – litigants in person request adjournment to engage other solicitors or to prepare to represent themselves – discretion to grant adjournment of hearing – requirements of justice for unrepresented litigants – whether discretion properly exercised.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – three factually related proceedings to be heard together – adjournment of hearing of one claim – whether two related claims should proceed – discretion to order that proceedings be heard separately – relevant considerations – whether discretion properly exercised.
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 51AAHouse v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 applied
State of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 considered
Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625 considered
Hunter v Webb (Federal Court, Sheppard J, unreported, 19 July 1996) considered
Titan v Babic (1994) 49 FCR 546 considered
Morton v Vouris (Federal Court, Sackville J, unreported, 18 September 1996) cited
Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 cited
Rajski v Scitec Corporation (New South Wales Court of Appeal, unreported, 16 June 1986) citedJARRETT v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
NG 829 OF 1998
HEEREY, CARR & MANSFIELD JJ
SYDNEY
16 APRIL 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 829 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
GLENN ROBERT JARRETT
First AppellantDEBORAH ALISON JARRETT
Second AppellantAND:
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
RespondentJUDGES:
HEEREY, CARR & MANSFIELD JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
16 APRIL 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The judgment appealed from be set aside and the matter re-heard.
3.The costs of hearing on 25 to 29 May 1998 be reserved to the trial judge on the rehearing and there be no order as to the costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 829 of 1998
BETWEEN:
GLENN ROBERT JARRETT
First AppellantDEBORAH ALISON JARRETT
Second AppellantAND:
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGES:
HEEREY, CARR & MANSFIELD JJ
DATE:
16 APRIL 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HEEREY J:
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Mansfield J. I gratefully adopt his Honour’s summary of the evidence and the procedural history of this matter. I shall however refer to some further aspects.
Procedural Fairness
The decision of the learned trial judge to proceed with the Westpac matter alone did not cause any relevant injustice to the Jarretts. Insofar as they wished to tender any evidence or address any argument in the Westpac trial, they were free to do so, notwithstanding that such evidence or argument might also have been admissible…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jarrett 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 425
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether Westpac's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. This required the court to consider the nature of the communications between Westpac and Mr. Jarrett, and whether those communications were misleading. Another issue was whether Westpac had a duty to disclose information that was not explicitly requested by Mr. Jarrett. The court also had to determine the appropriate remedy if it found that misleading or deceptive conduct had occurred.
The court held that Westpac's conduct did indeed amount to misleading or deceptive conduct because it failed to provide certain information that was relevant to Mr. Jarrett's decision to enter into the mortgage. The court found that Westpac had a duty to provide the necessary information to enable Mr. Jarrett to make an informed decision, even if it was not explicitly requested. The court concluded that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and in applying the law, leading to an incorrect outcome. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the original judgment was set aside, and the matter was to be re-heard. The costs of the hearing were reserved for determination by the trial judge on the rehearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The judgment appealed from be set aside and the matter re-heard.
3. The costs of hearing on 25 to 29 May 1998 be reserved to the trial judge on the rehearing and there be no order as to the costs of the appeal.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.