Radin, Michael v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1997] FCA 172

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) GENERAL DIVISION )

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: 17 March 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ex tempore) INTRODUCTION There is before the Court a motion brought by the applicant by notice of motion filed in Court by leave this morning. The notice of motion seeks the following relief. "1. The Notice of Motion be returned instanter. 2. An order that the 1st Respondent be restrained from continuing to retain Mr John Sackar QC as its Counsel in the proceedings. 3. An order that Mr John Sackar, QC be joined as a party to the proceedings for the purposes of the orders sought in this Notice of Motion. 4. An order that Mr John Sackar QC be restrained from continuing to appear for the 1st Respondent in the proceedings." The motion is supported by an affidavit of Michael Radin, the applicant, sworn today, 17 March ("Mr Radin's affidavit"). Today is currently fixed as the first day of the hearing of that proceeding and of certain associated proceedings NG 984 and 985 of 1995. In NG 984 of 1995, Mr Radin's mother, Vladimirka Radin, and in NG 985 of 1995 his former wife, Judith Radin, also seek relief against the respondent ("the Bank"). The orders sought in the notice of motion wrongly refer to the Bank as "the first respondent": the Bank is the only respondent. The hearing of the three proceedings was to commence last Monday, 10 March but I ordered that the first week be vacated. I delivered reasons for the partial vacation last Tuesday 11 March. I incorporate those Reasons for Judgment in these present Reasons in order to save repeating the account of the background facts. I made the first order in the notice of motion this morning and argument has proceeded in relation to order number 3. A question was raised as to whether I should hear the motion in so far as to orders 2 and 4. It is said that evidence might emerge in relation to orders 2 and 4 which would create a situation in which I would or might be disqualified from hearing the trial. However, counsel for Mr Radin made it clear that my reading of the affidavit and documentary evidence relied upon by Mr Radin for the purposes of orders 1 and 3 would not be said to support a submission that I should disqualify myself.