Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation

[2006] HCATrans 510

[2006] HCATrans 510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  Nos S427 of 2005 and S182 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

IAN COCKBILL MURPHY

Applicant

and

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2006, AT 9.12 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a solicitor, seeks special leave to appeal against two sets of orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.  By his first application he seeks special leave to appeal against orders by which the Court of Appeal granted the respondent Bank leave to appeal against orders of the District Court of New South Wales refusing to enter summary judgment in the Bank’s favour in its claim for $68,230.71 charged back to the present applicant in respect of certain credit card transactions in which the applicant had debited his client’s credit card with amounts claimed as legal costs.  The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that judgment be entered for the Bank.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application that the proceedings in the District Court be stayed on the ground that that Court was not an appropriate forum.

By his second application the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders by which the Court of Appeal varied the orders earlier pronounced and entered so that the orders, as varied, would more accurately and completely give effect to the judgment reached in the appeal.

Because the applicant acts for himself both applications for special leave fall to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the applicant had no arguable defence to the Bank’s claim is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of special leave.  Nor is there reason to doubt that in the particular circumstances of this case the Court of Appeal might vary the order it had earlier pronounced in the way in which it did.  That being so it is not in the interests of justice in this case or more generally that there be a grant of special leave.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.14 AM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED