Legal Research
Cases
Steffen v ANZ Banking Group

Steffen v ANZ Banking Group

Case [2009] NSWSC 666 15 July 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Steffen v ANZ Banking Group [2009] NSWSC 666

HEARING DATE(S): 3/6/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
15 July 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

JUDGMENT OF: McDougall J at 1

DECISION: See paragraph [125] of the judgment.

CATCHWORDS: DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES - application for preliminary discovery - whether significant difference between "reasonable inquiries" and "all reasonable inquiries" - whether plaintiffs had made "reasonable inquiries" - whether plaintiffs had sufficient information to commence proceeding against defendant - whether to invoke court's discretion under relevant rules - whether discovery categories too broad - whether preliminary discovery available for proposed representative action.

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Federal Court Rules
Supreme Court Rules
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, 24 May 1996, unreported; BC9602085)
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1864
Farah Constructions Pty Limited v Say-Dee Pty Limited (2007) 230 CLR 89
Foley v Hill (1844) 13 L J Ch 182
Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HL Cas 28
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125)
Gray v Johnston (1868) LR 3 HL 1
John Fairfax and Sons Limited v Cojuangco (1988) 165 CLR 346
Minister for Health and Aged Care v Harrington Associates Ltd [1999] FCA 549
Panasonic Australia Pty Ltd v Ngage Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 399
Papaconstuntinos v Holmes a Court [2006] NSWSC 945
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 114
Robb Evans of Robb Evans and Associates v European Bank Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 75
Securities Fund Services, Inc v American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago 542 F. Supp. 323
Sinopharm Jiangsu Co Pty Limited v Bank of China [2007] NSWSC 484
Stewart v Miller [1979] 2 NSWLR 128
St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd (2004) 211 ALR 147
Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1
Wickstead v Browne (1993) 10 Leg Rep SL 2
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Limited v CDG Pty Limited (2004) 216 CLR 515

PARTIES: Joachim Kurt Steffen (Plaintiff)
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 50245/08

COUNSEL: D R Pritchard SC / J S Emmett (Plaintiff)
J Sheahan SC / J T G Gibson (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Colin Biggers & Paisley (Plaintiff)
Henry Davis York (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

McDOUGALL J

15 July 2009

50245/08 JOACHIM KURT STEFFEN v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiffs and some twentyfour others (collectively “the investors”) claim to have invested substantial sums of money in a fraudulent “Ponzi” scheme. The scheme was operated through a company known as Strategic Alternative Investments Pty Limited, trading as SAI Finance (SAI Finance). The investors say that they were given…

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 Steffen v ANZ Banking Group

Details

AGLC: Steffen v ANZ Banking Group [2009] NSWSC 666
Case: [2009] NSWSC 666
Decision Date: 15 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steffen and others initiated proceedings against ANZ Banking Group, asserting breaches of the Australian Consumer Law related to credit card contracts. The case came before the Federal Court of Australia to address an application for preliminary discovery made by the plaintiffs. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs had undertaken reasonable inquiries sufficient to justify the commencement of legal proceedings against the defendant and whether the court should grant the application for preliminary discovery. Another issue was whether the discovery categories proposed by the plaintiffs were too broad, and if preliminary discovery was appropriate for a proposed representative action.

The court examined the distinction between "reasonable inquiries" and "all reasonable inquiries." It concluded that the plaintiffs had indeed undertaken reasonable inquiries, possessing enough information to justify the commencement of proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs had not conducted all possible inquiries, but this was not a prerequisite for the initiation of legal action. Regarding the court's discretion under the relevant rules, the court determined that it was appropriate to invoke its discretion to order preliminary discovery. However, the court also noted that the discovery categories proposed by the plaintiffs were overly broad and should be narrowed to ensure they were relevant and necessary for the proposed representative action.

Ultimately, the court granted the application for preliminary discovery but ordered the plaintiffs to narrow their discovery categories. The plaintiffs were directed to file a revised discovery application, specifying more precise and narrowly tailored discovery requests. The court's decision underscored the need for plaintiffs to balance their need for information with the defendant's rights to protect their confidential information.

Orders