JUDGMENT No. so Socal seednzan IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Nos. QG45 and QG123 of GENERAL DIVISION 1994 BETWEEN: DONALD JAMES CAMERON Ad Applicant AND: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Respondent CORAM: WILCOX, SPENDER & BURCHETT JJ PLACE: BRISBANE DATE : 7 NOVEMBER 1994 RECEIVFD 21 NOV 1994 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY WILCOX J: There is before the Court a notice of appeal that calls into question two decisions by single Judges of the Court in relation to separate proceedings. In each case, the Judge ordered that the proceeding be struck out. The first matter was dealt with by Drummond J in a judgment given on 28 June 1994. 'The statement of claim then before his Honour was explained in the course of discussion as being designed to allege against the respondent, Westpac Banking Corporation, that two officers of the bank had given false evidence in a criminal proceeding. His Honour discussed the matter with Mr Cameron, the applicant and now appellant, who appeared in person. He indicated to him that, even on the assumption that the officers had indeed given false evidence (and, in fairness, I should interpolate that there is no 2. evidence of this and, indeed, the contrary view was expressed in the Court of Criminal Appeal); but, even on that assumption, the case was covered by two decisions of the High Court of Australia: namely, Cabassi_ v. Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130 and Giannarelli v. Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543. His Honour, in the course of a short judgment, quoted from what Dawson J had to say in Giannarelli: in essence, a witness may not be sued even in respect of false testimony knowingly given. Those decisions are, of course, binding on us. As Mr Cameron conceded in argument this morning, they are an insuperable obstacle for him. Drummond J was plainly correct in the course that he took. The challenge to his judgment must fail. The second judgment which is challenged was given by O'Loughlin J on 8 September 1994. By that time, the statement of claim on which Mr Cameron relied had been revised. As Mr Cameron pointed out today, that statement of claim makes reference to wrongfully and maliciously instigating proceedings. The discussion today has revealed that this is the nub of the case that Mr Cameron seeks to bring against the bank at this stage. Apparently, the suggestion is that bank officers made false reports to the police and that, as a result of this, criminal proceedings were commenced. Once again, there is no material before us to support those allegations; and, indeed, they are inconsistent with the view expressed in the Court of Criminal Appeal. However, as we pointed out in the discussion to Mr Cameron, the statement of 3. claim does not make that allegation. Under the heading to which I have referred, the statement of claim merely refers to certain demands for repayment of moneys alleged to have been loaned by the bank to Mr Cameron and which he denies having received. If it was intended to raise a malicious prosecution case, then the document is simply ineffective for that purpose. O'Loughlin J, in his judgment, expressed the approach which any member of the Court would take, particularly in the case of a litigant appearing in person, namely, to adopt a tolerant view of perceived deficiencies in a pleading. But he pointed out that it was essential that any applicant, even one representing himself, set out in writing the nature of his complaint against the party whom he names as the respondent in such a way that an impartial third party, such as a Judge, may read and understand it. O'Loughlin J said that this was not done in the statement of claim he had to consider. It seems to me that this comment was eminently justified and that his Honour had no alternative other than to strike out the statement of claim. I would dismiss the appeal in respect of its challenge to both decisions. SPENDER J: I agree. BURCHETT J: I agree. 4. WILCOX J: The orders of the Court will be that the appeal be dismissed and the appellant pay the respondent's costs. I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Court. Associate: ee ee NN Dated: 7 November 1994 APPEARANCES The Applicant: Appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: J C Sheahan Solicitors for the Respondent: Feez Ruthning Date of hearing: 7 November 1994