FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ninan v St George Bank Ltd [2014] FCA 334
Citation: Ninan v St George Bank Ltd [2014] FCA 334 Parties: GEORGE NINAN AND MOLLY GEORGE v ST GEORGE BANK LTD (ABN 92 055 513 070) and WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
(ABN 33 007 457 141)File number: WAD 491 of 2013 Judge: MCKERRACHER J Date of judgment: 3 April 2014 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to commence proceedings repeating allegations made in previous proceedings – whether pursuing proceedings would be an abuse of process – patent deficiencies in pleadings – applicants seeking to repeat same claims made in previous proceedings – proposed proceedings would be an abuse of process – leave to file the proceeding refused Cases cited: Ninan v St George Bank Ltd (2012) 294 ALR 190
Ninan v St George Bank Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 273
Ninan v St George Bank Ltd [2013] FCA 818
Ninan v Valuer-General of Western Australia [2013] FCA 789
Ninan v Valuer-General of Western Australia (No 2) [2013] FCA 1180
Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (ACN 007 656 555) (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 7 March 2014 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 22 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Ninan represented the applicants Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P Newton Solicitor for the Respondents: Kemp Strang
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 491 of 2013
BETWEEN: GEORGE NINAN AND MOLLY GEORGE
ApplicantsAND: ST GEORGE BANK LTD (ABN 92 055 513 070)
First RespondentWESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION (ABN 33 007 457 141)
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 APRIL 2014
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave to file the proposed proceeding is refused.
2.The applicants pay the costs of the respondents, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 491 of 2013
BETWEEN: GEORGE NINAN AND MOLLY GEORGE
ApplicantsAND: ST GEORGE BANK LTD (ABN 92 055 513 070)
First RespondentWESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION (ABN 33 007 457 141)
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MCKERRACHER J
DATE:
3 APRIL 2014
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The applicants require and seek the Court’s leave to file an application against the respondents. Such leave is necessary due to orders made by Buchanan J on 9 August 2013 in proceedings commenced by the same applicants against (amongst others) the same respondents in the New South Wales Registry of this Court (Ninan v Valuer-General of Western Australia [2013] FCA 789 (Ninan No 2)). Orders made by his Honour in those proceedings were that the applicants provide security for costs by a certain date, failing which those proceedings would stand dismissed. Further, if the proceedings were dismissed for failure to provide security for…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ninan v St George Bank Ltd 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
- [2014] FCA 334
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' proposed proceedings would be an abuse of process. The court considered the applicants' attempt to repeat claims that had already been adjudicated upon and dismissed in previous litigation. The court noted that the proposed pleadings contained deficiencies and repeated the same allegations, indicating an attempt to relitigate settled issues. The court found that allowing the proceedings would not only be an abuse of process but also a waste of the court's resources.
The court reasoned that permitting the applicants to pursue the same claims again would lead to a relitigation of issues that had already been determined. The court held that the applicants were attempting to circumvent the finality of previous judgments by repackaging the same claims in a new proceeding. The court concluded that the proposed proceedings would be an abuse of process and denied the applicants leave to file the proceeding. Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The court made an order refusing leave to file the proposed proceeding and mandated that the applicants pay the respondents' costs. This decision underscored the importance of the finality of judgments and the court's role in preventing repetitive and wasteful litigation. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that parties cannot simply refile the same claims in a new proceeding to circumvent previous judgments.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to file the proposed proceeding is refused.
2. The applicants pay the costs of the respondents, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.