National Australia Bank v Freeman

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

National Australia Bank v Freeman [2001] FCA 1783

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED v LYNTON NOEL CHARLES FREEMAN

No Q 7001 of 2001

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
10 DECEMBER 2001


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 7001 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

LYNTON NOEL CHARLES FREEMAN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The notice of motion filed 10 October 2001, insofar as it seeks review of Deputy District Registrar Baldwin’s decision refusing an order for discovery, be dismissed.

2.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 7001 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

LYNTON NOEL CHARLES FREEMAN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

10 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By a notice of motion filed on 27 July 2001, Lynton Noel Charles Freeman sought an order that the National Australia Bank produce for inspection documents that were referred to in an affidavit which was attached to that notice of motion.  In the affidavit filed 27 July 2001, Mr Freeman referred to correspondence from Mallesons Stephen Jaques including a letter dated 20 June 2001 in relation to this aspect of the matter where Ms Costello referred in the first page to a request by Mr Freeman for nine categories of documents.

  2. In respect of each of those categories, the bank responded.  On 22 June Mr Freeman wrote to Ms Costello and set out a request for 11 categories of documents.  The first category was Business Banking Handbook and other relevant manuals;  the second was delegated lending authority of two persons who occupied the position of Rural Finance Manager.  Mr Freeman next wanted bank statements of bank accounts that were held and conducted by the National Australia Bank, Red Ink memorandum account (Shadow Ledger), manager's suspense accounts and realisation accounts, schedule of securities, watch lists, National Australia Bank in Queensland (Head Office) and Central Queensland Credit Bureau files in total, the personnel file of a particular named Rural Finance Manager, as well as two other personnel files of other bank officers, and the personnel file of a bank officer who had retired from the National Australia Bank and who was advising Mr Freeman. 

  3. The request in the notice of motion seeking discovery of documents was heard by Deputy District Registrar Baldwin, and in written reasons dated 26 September 2001, Registrar Baldwin refused to order discovery.  By a notice of motion filed 10 October 2001, Mr Freeman has sought, amongst other things, to review Registrar Baldwin's decision concerning discovery:  such review is heard by the Court de novo.  It is therefore necessary to have regard to the merits in support of the motion, although I have to say that I have derived considerable assistance from the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read National Australia Bank v Freeman 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
[2001] FCA 1783
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved National Australia Bank, the applicant, and Freeman, the respondent. The dispute centred on the refusal of the Deputy District Registrar Baldwin to grant the applicant an order for discovery. The National Australia Bank sought a review of this decision, arguing that the refusal was improper and that the discovery should be allowed. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Deputy District Registrar Baldwin correctly exercised his discretion in refusing the order for discovery. The applicant argued that the refusal was an error and that the discovery should be granted as it was necessary for the proper conduct of the case. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the refusal was justified and that the discovery was not warranted.

The court considered the circumstances under which discovery orders are granted and the discretion vested in the Deputy District Registrar. The court noted that the refusal of discovery was not an appealable decision unless it was demonstrated that the Deputy District Registrar had made an error of law or had acted outside the scope of his jurisdiction. In this instance, the court found that the Deputy District Registrar had not made such an error and had properly exercised his discretion. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's notice of motion seeking a review of the decision.

The court ordered that the notice of motion filed on 10 October 2001, to the extent that it sought review of the Deputy District Registrar's decision, be dismissed. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of motion filed 10 October 2001, insofar as it seeks review of Deputy District Registrar Baldwin’s decision refusing an order for discovery, be dismissed.

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

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

SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.