Henke v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] HCATrans 116 (29 February 2008)

Last Updated: 4 March 2008

[2008] HCATrans 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M87 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

IAN SIDNEY HENKE

Applicant

and

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Application for removal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.55 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia
GUMMOW J: The applicant applied for and was granted two credit cards by the respondent on 15 November 1995 and 18 August 1999 respectively. The respondent filed two complaints in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to recover amounts allegedly owing under the terms and conditions of those credit cards. The amounts claimed were in the vicinity of $16,000 and $9,000 respectively.

The applicant sought to defend the complaints by contending that the legislation pursuant to which the respondent became a public company was invalid. The proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to s 17 of the Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991 (Vic).

An application for summary judgment in favour of the respondent was dismissed by a Master of Court, who considered the application procedurally incompetent under Rule 22.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic). The respondent filed a notice of appeal in respect of the Master’s decision which was listed before Smith J on 13 August 2007. His Honour adjourned the hearing of the appeal pending the determination of this application for removal of the cause pending in the Supreme Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (“the Act”).

The applicant has failed to demonstrate any issue arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation which requires this Court’s urgent decision (Bienstein v Bienstein [2003] HCA 7; (2003) 195 ALR 225 at [45]). There is no basis upon which the Court’s powers of removal under s 40(1) of the Act should be exercised. The application for removal is refused.

Pursuant to r 26.05.3 and r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

We will now adjourn to Court 1 at 10.00 am.

AT 9.57 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED