Radin, Vladimirka v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Radin, Judith v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Radin, Michael v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1997] FCA 164

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) GENERAL DIVISION ) No NG 984 of 1995 BETWEEN: VLADIMIRKA RADIN Applicant AND: COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124) Respondent No NG 985 of 1995 BETWEEN: JUDITH RADIN Applicant AND: COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124) Respondent No NG 437 of 1996 BETWEEN: MICHAEL RADIN Applicant AND: COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124) Respondent

CORAM: Lindgren J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 11 March 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ex tempore) INTRODUCTION There are before the Court at present three proceedings. The first is brought by Michael Radin against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("the Bank"). That proceeding is now numbered NG 437 of 1996. The second is brought by Vladimirka Radin against the Bank and is numbered NG 984 of 1995. The third is brought by Judith Radin against the Bank and is numbered NG 985 of 1995. Without intending any discourtesy, I will refer to the respective applicants as "Michael", "Vladimirka" and "Judith" in order to distinguish between them. Vladimirka is Michael's mother and Judith is Michael's former wife. The three proceedings arise out of mortgages given by the respective applicants to the Bank to secure financial accommodation which was provided by the Bank to Michael in connection with the practice which he formerly conducted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. At the end of 1992 a receiver was appointed to that practice and subsequently Michael was struck off the roll of solicitors. Apparently, the clients of the practice were, to a substantial extent, persons who were injured and sought damages or compensation in respect of their injuries. Apparently, in respect of various fees payable, such as court fees, expert witness fees and counsel's fees, the clients were funded by Michael. Apparently, the financial accommodation provided by the Bank was made available, to a substantial extent, to enable Michael to fund his clients in the manner mentioned. The mortgages were over numerous properties owned by some one or two of Michael, Vladimirka and Judith. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The proceeding by Michael against the Bank was commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales as proceeding number 12233 of 1993 on 18 August 1993. In that proceeding there was a cross-claim by the Bank against Michael, Vladimirka and Judith. It is not necessary for me to describe in detail the bases of the relief sought at that time by Michael in respect of the mortgages which he, alone or with Vladimirka or Judith, had given to the Bank. Perhaps it will suffice to say that until recent amendments there were claims based on negligent management of Michael's account with the Bank and "negligent lending" and misleading and deceptive conduct. He sought damages and an injunction against enforcement of the mortgages. The proceedings by Vladimirka and Judith were commenced in this Court on 28 December 1995. On 27 May 1996, by order made in the Supreme Court, Michael's proceeding was transferred to this Court. On 30 May 1996, Sheppard J ordered that the three proceedings be heard together; that the hearing of all three estimated for three weeks be provisionally fixed for hearing to commence on 3 March 1997; and that the applicants file and serve all statements of evidence by 11 July 1996. There were other directions as well. On 22 August 1996, Sheppard J made these orders: