Trezise, J.C. v National Australia Bank Ltd

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )       No. VG 372 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

B E T W E E N:

JOHN COLIN MAXWELL TREZISE & ORS

- and -
Applicants

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED & ORS
Respondents

JUDGE: Heerey J

DATE: 16 February 1995

PLACE: Melbourne

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I am satisfied that essentially the same orders should be made in the striking out application made on behalf of Williams and Williams as were made in the one brought by the Bank. Contrary to the submissions put, it is clear that this Court has jurisdiction since, amongst other things, the relief sought involves a setting aside of an order of this Court.

In respect of both respondents there will be a direction giving the applicants leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim, if so advised, and an order that the applicants pay any costs thrown away as a result of that. Such amendments, hopefully, will get the proceedings in better shape. But the real gist of the proceedings today was the application for summary judgment in respect of which the respondents failed, so I think that costs should reflect that.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Heerey.
Dated:
Associate

Appearances

Counsel for the applicant: Mr A Myers QC, Mr R
Greenberger

Solicitor for the applicant: Harrison & Associates

Counsel for the second Mr N O'Bryan

respondent:

Solicitor for the second Minter Ellison Morris

respondent:Fletcher

Date of hearing: 16 February 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard an application brought by John Colin Maxwell Trezise and others against National Australia Bank Limited and others. The applicants sought a summary judgment in relation to certain claims made against the respondents. The case was presided over by Justice Heerey in the Victoria District Registry. The applicants were represented by Mr A Myers QC and Mr R Greenberger, while the respondents were represented by Mr N O'Bryan and Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to a summary judgment on their claims. Additionally, the court needed to determine if it had the jurisdiction to hear the application, given that the relief sought involved setting aside an order of the Court. The applicants argued that the Court had jurisdiction, while the respondents contested this point.

Justice Heerey found that the Court did indeed have jurisdiction to hear the application, as the relief sought involved setting aside an order of the Court. The Court also granted the applicants leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim, if so advised, and ordered that the applicants pay any costs thrown away as a result of that. However, the real focus of the proceedings was the application for summary judgment, which the respondents ultimately failed. As such, the Court awarded costs to the applicants, reflecting their success in the matter.

The final orders included granting the applicants leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim, if so advised, and ordering the applicants to pay any costs thrown away as a result of that. Additionally, the Court awarded costs to the applicants, reflecting their success in the application for summary judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established