Legal Research
Cases
Rodgers v ANZ Banking Group Ltd

Rodgers v ANZ Banking Group Ltd

Case [2006] QSC 190 28 July 2006

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Rodgers v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2006] QSC 190

PARTIES:STEPHEN ALEXANDER RODGERS and ROSLYN RODGERS

(Plaintiff)
v
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED
(Defendant)

FILE NO: S111 of 2006
DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 28 July 2006

DELIVERED AT:        Rockhampton
HEARING DATES:     13 June 2006
JUDGE:   Dutney J

ORDERS:1) The claim for wages in paragraph 33 of the statement of claim be struck out; the application is otherwise dismissed.
2) The Defendant/applicant to pay the Plaintiffs/respondents’ costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE – ACTION – STRIKING OUT – Whether
causes of action precluded by judgment in earlier
action – whether an abuse of process.

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF – Where plaintiffs
have claimed loss of wages – Where losses reflect the
company’s own losses and should be claimed by the
company – Whether claim for loss of wages should be
struck out.

LEGISLATION: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act
2001 (Cth) ss. 12CA, 12CB and 12DA.

CASES:ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers & Anor [2003]
QSC 304, cited.
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, applied.
Chen v Karandonis [2002] NSWCA 412, applied.
Gould v Vaggelasi (1983) 157 CLR 215, applied.
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60, cited.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, applied.
Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR
494, cited.
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR
589, cited.
Rodgers v ANZ Banking Group Ltd & Anor [2005]
QSC 265, cited.
Sol Theo & Anor v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[1996] FCA 1036, cited.
Thomas v D’arcy [2005] 1 Qd. R. 666, cited.
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164
CLR 387, cited.

COUNSEL:Mr I Perkins for the Applicant

Mr S Rodgers and Mrs R Rodgers for the Respondent

(self-represented)

SOLICITORS: Minter Ellison for the Applicant
The Respondents/plaintiffs were self-represented

The present application is by the defendant (“the ANZ”) to strike out the claim and statement of claim as an abuse of process. The application is brought pursuant to r. 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which, in terms, relates only to a statement of claim. No point has been taken about this, however, and any difficulty this presents is one of form rather than substance since there is undoubtedly a power to grant the relief the ANZ seeks if it is otherwise appropriate.

Litigation between the plaintiffs and the ANZ has been ongoing over a number of years.

In order to make sense of the present matter, it is necessary to set out some history of the relationship between the parties and the subsequent litigation. What follows is not intended to be comprehensive. Its purpose is only to place the present application in its proper context.

Mr and Mrs Rodgers were involved with two companies. The first was a private investment company wholly owned by them called Rodgers Family Investments Pty…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rodgers v ANZ Banking Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rodgers v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2006] QSC 190
Case: [2006] QSC 190
Decision Date: 28 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard an application by ANZ Banking Group Limited against Stephen Alexander Rodgers and Roslyn Rodgers. The ANZ sought to strike out the plaintiffs' claim for wages in paragraph 33 of their statement of claim, arguing that it was an abuse of process and precluded by the judgment in an earlier action. The court had to decide whether the plaintiffs' claim was precluded by the findings in the earlier action, whether the claim amounted to an abuse of process, and whether the claim for lost wages was recoverable. The court found that the claim was not precluded by the earlier judgment, was not an abuse of process, and the claim for lost wages was unsustainable and should be struck out. The court dismissed the application to strike out the claim and ordered the ANZ to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application on the standard basis. The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was not precluded by the earlier judgment because the issues raised in the third action were not necessarily inconsistent with the continuing validity and enforceability of the ANZ's securities. The court found that the claim was not an abuse of process because the plaintiffs were not seeking an outcome inconsistent with the outcome in the first action. The court found that the claim for lost wages was unsustainable because it was a reflective loss of the companies and should be claimed by the companies.

Orders