Mentyn v Westpac Banking Corporation [2003] FCA 1521

Mentyn v Westpac Banking Corporation [2003] FCA 1521

The apprehended bias application failed because the earlier cross-vesting order was made for self-evident convenience and did not reflect on the applicant's character or integrity, and leave for the subpoena did not show prejudgment. The proceeding was dismissed because the applicant did not make out any claim under the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) or the Cheques Act 1986 (Cth), and the pleaded allegations were matters solely within State law in respect of which the Federal Court had no jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application in the Federal Court of Australia Arising Out of a Property Purchase Dispute and Related State Court Proceedings / Hearing of Notices of Motion, Including Disqualification for Apprehended Bias and Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
The applicant's notice of motion dated 9 December 2003 was dismissed, and the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with indemnity costs payable by the applicant to all respondents.
Legal Topics
['apprehended Bias' 'want of Jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'cross Vesting' 'subpoena' 'scandalous Document on Court File' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'property Law'] ['apprehended Bias' 'want of Jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'cross Vesting' 'subpoena' 'scandalous Document on Court File' 'indemnity Costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application in the Federal Court of Australia Arising Out of a Property Purchase Dispute and Related State Court Proceedings / Hearing of Notices of Motion, Including Disqualification for Apprehended Bias and Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Heerey J should disqualify himself for apprehended bias because of an earlier cross-vesting order and leave granted for a subpoena for medical records.' "Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the applicant's claims concerning alleged fraud, breach of trust, conversion or misappropriation arising from the St Marys property transaction and related Supreme Court proceedings." 'Whether a scandalous document referring to a Supreme Court judge should be removed from the Court file.' 'Whether documents produced under subpoena by the Practice Manager of the Derwent Valley Medical Centre should be returned.']

Ratio Decidendi

The apprehended bias application failed because the earlier cross-vesting order was made for self-evident convenience and did not reflect on the applicant's character or integrity, and leave for the subpoena did not show prejudgment. The proceeding was dismissed because the applicant did not make out any claim under the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) or the Cheques Act 1986 (Cth), and the pleaded allegations were matters solely within State law in respect of which the Federal Court had no jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

The applicant's notice of motion dated 9 December 2003 was dismissed, and the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with indemnity costs payable by the applicant to all respondents.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion dated 9 December 2003 is dismissed." 'The document on the Court file, identified as document number 22, be removed from the file.' 'The documents produced under subpoena by the Practice Manager of the Derwent Valley Medical Centre be returned immediately to the Medical Centre.'...