Starr v Westpac Banking Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STARR v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION [2018] FCCA 3048

Catchwords:
CONSUMER CREDIT – Credit protection – general – operation of credit legislation – jurisdiction.

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – Federal Circuit Court – procedure – ending proceedings early – summary disposal or stay.

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – Federal Circuit Court – procedure – parties.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.10
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, ss.88, 166, 166(1), 167, 167(1), 178, 179, 205, 227, 227(1), 227(2), 228, 228(2)

Cases cited:

Adnunat Pty Ltd v ITW Constructions Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 499
Alley & Gillespie (2018) 353 ALR 1
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Gargan (2004) 140 FCR 1
Hawkesbury City Council v Foster & Anor (1997) 97 LGERA 12
Re Bank of Queensland Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 129
Tranton v Astor (1917) 33 TLR 383

Applicant: WAYNE MATTHEW STARR
Respondent: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION
File Number: BRG 564 of 2018
Judgment of: Judge Jarrett
Hearing date: 21 September 2018
Date of Last Submission: 1 October 2018
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 26 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Jennings
Solicitors for the Respondent: Kemp Strang

ORDERS

  1. Pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, the application filed on 8 June, 2018 is dismissed.

  2. Subject to any submissions from either party to be made in writing within seven (7) days of the delivery of this judgment, direct that:

    (a)any application for costs be notified by one party to the other by the filing and service of written submissions specifying:

    (i)the precise orders for costs sought and any alternatives;

    (ii)the argument in support of each order; and

    (iii)whether that party is desirous of any oral hearing of the costs issue

    by the date no more than fourteen (14) days after the delivery of these orders; and

    (b)the respondent to any such application shall file and serve written submissions specifying:

    (i)the precise orders sought by the respondent;

    (ii)the argument in support of the response; and

    (iii)whether that party is desirous of any oral hearing of the costs issue

    by the date no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the delivery of these orders.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 564 of 2018

WAYNE MATTHEW STARR

Applicant

And

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for summary dismissal of proceedings commenced by Mr Starr on 8 June, 2018.  Mr Starr resists the application.  In short compass, Westpac argues that Mr Starr has no standing to commence these proceedings, to seek the relief claimed in them and his case is otherwise unlikely to succeed. 

  2. For the reasons that follow, I accept Westpac’s submissions.  The proceedings should be summarily dismissed.

The proceedings

  1. In his application filed on 8 June, 2018, Mr Starr seeks the following relief:

    1.That the Respondent breached Sections 227 of the National Consumer Credit…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Starr v Westpac Banking Corporation 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
[2018] FCCA 3048
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Starr, against the respondent, Westpac Banking Corporation, before Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute involved allegations of contraventions of civil penalty provisions under the relevant Act.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had standing to seek declarations of contravention and pecuniary penalties under sections 166 and 167 of the Act, and whether he could seek compensation orders under section 178 of the Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicant, as an individual who had allegedly suffered loss, could initiate proceedings for these remedies, or if such applications were restricted to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The Court's reasoning centred on the interpretation of sections 166, 167, and 178 of the Act. Section 166(1) clearly states that only ASIC may apply for a declaration of contravention of a civil penalty provision. Similarly, section 167(1) limits applications for pecuniary penalties to ASIC. While section 178(2)(a) permits an application for a compensation order to be made by "the plaintiff or ASIC (on behalf of the plaintiff)", the Court found that this wording, in the context of the preceding sections, did not grant an individual the right to initiate such proceedings independently. The Court concluded that the legislative scheme intended for ASIC to be the primary enforcer of civil penalty provisions and to control the initiation of proceedings for declarations, pecuniary penalties, and compensation orders, even where an individual has suffered loss.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's application, finding that he lacked the legal standing to bring the proceedings as framed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Section 166(1) provides for who might apply for a declaration that a person has contravened a civil penalty provision of the Act. It gives that ability to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Section 167 deals with the recovery of pecuniary penalties from persons contravening civil penalty provisions. Those sections, relevantly, provide:166 Declaration of contravention of civil penalty provisionApplication for declaration of contravention(1) Within 6 years of a person contravening a civil penalty provision, ASIC may apply to the court for a declaration that the person contravened the provision.Declaration of contravention(2) The court must make the declaration if it is satisfied that the person has contravened the provision.167 Court may order person to pay pecuniary penalty for contravening civil penalty provisionApplication for order(1) Within 6 years of a person contravening a civil penalty provision, ASIC may apply to the court for an order that the person pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty.Court may order person to pay pecuniary penalty(2) If a declaration has been made under section 166 that the person has contravened the provision, the court may order the person to pay to the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty that the court considers is appropriate (but not more than the amount specified in subsection (3)).Determining amount of pecuniary penalty(3) The pecuniary penalty must not be more than:(a)if the person is a natural person—the maximum number of penalty units referred to in the civil penalty provision; or(b)if the person is a body corporate, a partnership or multiple trustees—5 times the maximum number of penalty units referred to in the civil penalty provision.Note: This Act treats partnerships and multiple trustees as if they were persons (see sections 14 and 15).Recovery of penalty as a debt(4) The pecuniary penalty may be recovered as a debt due to the Commonwealth. Section 178 provides for the making of compensation orders and upon whose application such orders might be made:178 Compensation ordersCourt may order person to pay compensation(1) The court may order a person (the defendant) to compensate another person (the plaintiff) for loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff if:(a) the defendant has contravened a civil penalty provision or has committed an offence against this Act (other than the National Credit Code); and(b) the loss or damage resulted from the contravention or commission of the offence.The order must specify the amount of compensation.Note: An order may be made under this subsection whether or not a declaration of contravention has been made under section 166.When order may be made(2) The court may make the order only if:(a) the plaintiff or ASIC (on behalf of the plaintiff) applies for an order under this section; and(b) the application is made within 6 years of the day the cause of action that relates to the contravention or commission of the offence accrued. Section 179 provides for the making of compensation and other orders in a similar way to s.178. It permits a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the contravention of a civil penalty provision or the commission of an offence to apply to a court for various orders.