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
APPLICANTAND:
LYNTON NOEL CHARLES FREEMAN
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
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
APPLICANTAND:
LYNTON NOEL CHARLES FREEMAN
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
SPENDER J
DATE:
10 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1783
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: SPENDER J
Full text does not contain this section.