Baggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] NSWSC 108

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Baggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] NSWSC 108 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 13235/1991 HEARING DATE(S) : 1/11/99 - 18/11/99; 4/2/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 March 2001

PARTIES : J Baggett (plaintiff) Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ACN 123 123 124) (defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL : P Finch (plaintiff) B Rayment QC with A Payne (defendant) SOLICITORS : Messrs James Moustacas & Co (plaintiff) L E Taylor (defendant) CATCHWORDS : Action for Damages - - Plaintiff employee of defendant - dismissed - whether defendant negligently advised him to abandon statutory right of appeal against dismissal - whether such an appeal could have succeeded - whether his dismissal and subsequent criminal prosecution attributable to unsafe work practices of defendant LEGISLATION CITED : Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-73 CASES CITED : Blyth Chemicals Limited v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66 DECISION : Verdict for defendant

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Tuesday 6 March 2001

No: 13235/91 John Gilbert Baggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Reasons for judgment

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, John Gilbert Baggett, was employed by the defendant, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, for about twenty-five years. In March 1986 the Bank dismissed him from its service. It is the circumstances leading to and surrounding that dismissal which give rise to these unusual proceedings.

Introduction 2 The plaintiff's dismissal was the result of his relationship with a customer of the Bank, John Scott, while he worked at the Thornleigh and Mudgee branches over a period in the 1980s. He was involved in opening several accounts for Mr Scott in fictitious names and in depositing into those accounts third party cheques, that is, cheques made out to a person or entity other than the named account holder. In fact, Mr Scott was perpetrating a major fraud upon his employer which, in turn, exposed the Bank to a substantial financial liability. The plaintiff himself faced criminal charges alleging his involvement in that fraud but, ultimately, that prosecution was terminated in his favour. 3 He was dismissed under certain provisions of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-73. That Act established a Tenure and Disciplinary Appeal Board, to which an officer of the Bank might appeal against his or her dismissal. In the first cause of action in the proceedings before me, the plaintiff alleges that he abandoned an appeal to that Board as a result of negligent advice tendered to him by superior bank officers. In a second cause of action he alleges that his dismissal and prosecution were the result of what might be described as unsafe work practices of the Bank: in particular, its acquiescence in the operation by some of its customers of accounts in fictitious names.