GARGAN v. WOODGATE; GARGAN v. COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR [2004] NSWSC 177

GARGAN v. WOODGATE; GARGAN v. COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR [2004] NSWSC 177

Mr. Gargan, as a private litigant and purported common informer, had no standing or statutory entitlement to initiate proceedings for penalties or prosecute offences under Commonwealth laws in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by way of summons or statement of claim. None of the relevant statutes confer such a right on him. The proceedings disclosed no cause of action capable of being brought by him and were therefore an abuse of process, warranting their summary dismissal.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Alexander Gargan; Defendant: Giles Geoffrey Woodgate; Defendant: Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Defendant: John Henry Bartrop
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Judgment; Determination of Abuse of Process
Outcome
Proceedings declared an abuse of process and dismissed. Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Penal Proceedings, Common Informers, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Standing to Prosecute, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Abuse of Process Penal Proceedings Common Informers Commencement of Criminal Proceedings Standing to Prosecute Summary Judgment

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Alexander Gargan

Plaintiff

Giles Geoffrey Woodgate

Defendant

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Defendant

John Henry Bartrop

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Judgment; Determination of Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can use the Supreme Court's proceedings to commence prosecutions as a common informer for offences under Commonwealth statutes
  2. 2 Whether proceedings commenced by summons or statement of claim can be used to prosecute indictable offences or recover penalties by a private person
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has standing or statutory authority to recover penalties for alleged offences against the Crimes Act 1914 or Criminal Code Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Gargan, as a private litigant and purported common informer, had no standing or statutory entitlement to initiate proceedings for penalties or prosecute offences under Commonwealth laws in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by way of summons or statement of claim. None of the relevant statutes confer such a right on him. The proceedings disclosed no cause of action capable of being brought by him and were therefore an abuse of process, warranting their summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Proceedings declared an abuse of process and dismissed. Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Proceedings in each matter declared an abuse of process under Part 13 Rule 5.
  • Proceedings in each matter dismissed generally.