Garrett v National Australia Bank [2007] FCA 530

Garrett v National Australia Bank [2007] FCA 530

The statement of claim was embarrassing, incoherent, and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against any respondent, failing to comply with the Federal Court Rules. The applicant had been given an opportunity to amend but declined, stating he could not improve the documents. Therefore, the pleadings were struck out and the application dismissed under Order 11 rule 16 of the Rules and s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), as there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Morton Garrett; First Respondent: National Australia Bank; Second Respondent: Michael Chaney; Third Respondent: John Stewart; Fourth Respondent: Michael Ulmar; Fifth Respondent: Geoffrey Tomlinson; Sixth Respondent: Ahmed Fahour; Seventh Respondent: John Thorn; Eighth Respondent: Malcolm Williamson; Ninth Respondent: Danny Gilbert; Tenth Respondent: Paul Rizzo; Eleventh Respondent: Kerry McDonald; Twelfth Respondent: Patricia Cross; Thirteenth Respondent: Hany Messieh; Fourteenth Respondent: Brendan Case; Fifteenth Respondent: Garry Nolan; Sixteenth Respondent: Micheala Healy; Seventeenth Respondent: John Cassar; Eighteenth Respondent: Timothy French; Nineteenth Respondent: Simon Illsley; Twentieth Respondent: Graham Softley; Twenty First Respondent: Sam Davies; Twenty Second Respondent: McGrath Nichol (SA); Twenty Third Respondent: Sunburst Holdings Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); Twenty Fourth Respondent: Sunburst Properties Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); Twenty Fifth Respondent: Braidwood Operations Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); Twenty Sixth Respondent: Braidwood Management Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); Twenty Seventh Respondent: Drumcalpin Wines Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); Twenty Eighth Respondent: Colin Nichol; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Tasvinum (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation); Thirtieth Respondent: McGrath Nichol (VIC); Thirty First Respondent: Scott Evans; Thirty Second Respondent: David Proudman; Thirty Third Respondent: Johnson Winter & Slattery; Thirty Fourth Respondent: Bruce Carter; Thirty Fifth Respondent: John Hart; Thirty Sixth Respondent: Ferrier Hodgson (SA); Thirty Seventh Respondent: David Colovic; Thirty Eighth Respondent: Kelly & Co; Thirty Ninth Respondent: Alan Scott; Fortieth Respondent: Sims Partners; Forty First Respondent: John Roger Crosby; Forty Second Respondent: Phillip Douglas Marshall; Forty Third Respondent: Neil Mackenzie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim and Dismiss Proceedings
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Pleadings Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Morton Garrett

Applicant

National Australia Bank

First Respondent

Michael Chaney

Second Respondent

John Stewart

Third Respondent

Michael Ulmar

Fourth Respondent

Geoffrey Tomlinson

Fifth Respondent

Ahmed Fahour

Sixth Respondent

John Thorn

Seventh Respondent

Malcolm Williamson

Eighth Respondent

Danny Gilbert

Ninth Respondent

Paul Rizzo

Tenth Respondent

Kerry McDonald

Eleventh Respondent

Patricia Cross

Twelfth Respondent

Hany Messieh

Thirteenth Respondent

Brendan Case

Fourteenth Respondent

Garry Nolan

Fifteenth Respondent

Micheala Healy

Sixteenth Respondent

John Cassar

Seventeenth Respondent

Timothy French

Eighteenth Respondent

Simon Illsley

Nineteenth Respondent

Graham Softley

Twentieth Respondent

Sam Davies

Twenty First Respondent

McGrath Nichol (SA)

Twenty Second Respondent

Sunburst Holdings Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Twenty Third Respondent

Sunburst Properties Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Braidwood Operations Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Twenty Fifth Respondent

Braidwood Management Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Drumcalpin Wines Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Colin Nichol

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Tasvinum (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Twenty Ninth Respondent

McGrath Nichol (VIC)

Thirtieth Respondent

Scott Evans

Thirty First Respondent

David Proudman

Thirty Second Respondent

Johnson Winter & Slattery

Thirty Third Respondent

Bruce Carter

Thirty Fourth Respondent

John Hart

Thirty Fifth Respondent

Ferrier Hodgson (SA)

Thirty Sixth Respondent

David Colovic

Thirty Seventh Respondent

Kelly & Co

Thirty Eighth Respondent

Alan Scott

Thirty Ninth Respondent

Sims Partners

Fortieth Respondent

John Roger Crosby

Forty First Respondent

Phillip Douglas Marshall

Forty Second Respondent

Neil Mackenzie

Forty Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim and Dismiss Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's statement of claim should be struck out for non-compliance with the Federal Court Rules and lack of reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application should be dismissed for the same reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was embarrassing, incoherent, and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against any respondent, failing to comply with the Federal Court Rules. The applicant had been given an opportunity to amend but declined, stating he could not improve the documents. Therefore, the pleadings were struck out and the application dismissed under Order 11 rule 16 of the Rules and s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), as there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out and application dismissed

Orders

  • The statement of claim filed on 1 February 2007 be struck out.
  • The application filed on 1 February 2007 be dismissed.