Spain v National Australia Bank

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Spain v National Australia Bank [2004] FCA 87

Statutes

Banking Act 1959 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 19

ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK and FERRIER HODGSON CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Q171 of 2003

KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
5 FEBRUARY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q171 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN
APPLICANT

AND:

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
FIRST RESPONDENT

FERRIER HODGSON CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

1.        The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings including reserved costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q171 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN
APPLICANT

AND:

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
FIRST RESPONDENT

FERRIER HODGSON CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE:	5 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The respondents seek orders that the application be set aside or the applicant’s claims be dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed and the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court, or that his pleading be struck out on similar grounds.

2. The applicant is self-represented in these proceedings and has drawn the Court documents himself.  The nature of the subject of the application is said in the application document to be:

   ‘Both Respondents have breached Terms and Conditions as per a stamped and Court approved Deed of Settlement.  Both have falsely accused the Applicant in correspondence dated 2 December 2002.’

3. The response in the form to the inquiry as to the legislative basis of the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the matter is said to be a connexion between the respondents via the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) and the Corporations legislation. The substantive relief the applicant seeks is ‘proper compensation to recoup missed opportunities’.  Details of the claim are given as follows:

   ‘1.       An order for both Respondents to pay all liabilities from creditors including those claimed in the second Respondent’s correspondence dated 02 December 02.

   2.        An order for proper compensation as contained within the statement of claim.

   3.        Permission to publish, promote and market a book titled The Angel’s Business Car including the names and circumstances which triggered the reason for the said book.  As well as marketing of the central character called Cliky Mouse.

   4.        An order to remove the word Australia from the first Respondent’s Company name because it shows little respect for the Australian term “Fair Go Mate”.

   5. An order for ASIC to investigate the circumstances surrounding the events and charge those responsible under Section 184 Criminal Code of the Australian Corporations and Securities Legislation.

   6.        An order for the ACCC to investigate false advertising and misleading information published by the first Respondent on its business cards as provided to its staffs, representatives and/or agents.

   7.        An order…