Applicant's proposed writ seeks damages from ANZ Bank relating to term deposit
A single justice of Australia’s High Court has refused an applicant’s request for leave to file a writ of summons upon finding the proposed writ frivolous and vexatious on its face and potentially abusive of the court’s process if filed.
In the matter of an application by Miranda for leave to issue or file, [2025] HCASJ 18, in a proposed writ of summons dated 17 April 2025, the applicant requested damages from Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) concerning a term deposit of $380,000.
The proposed writ also related to communications between ANZ and the applicant regarding his term deposit between 2014–24, as well as his series of associated complaints before the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
The applicant’s allegations against ANZ included fraud, bullying, harassment, unfair business practices, discrimination, unconscionable conduct, abuses of power, perversions of the course of justice, and breaches of contract, promise, trust, and fiduciary duty.
The applicant’s claims against ANZ also included breaches of its statutory and common law obligations by forcibly renewing his term deposit for 11 months rather than a month and misconduct resulting in the improper dismissal of his AFCA complaints.
On 22 April 2025, under r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), a justice directed the court registrar to decline to issue or file the proposed writ against ANZ without the applicant first obtaining leave.
On 12 May 2025, the applicant brought an ex parte application seeking leave to issue or file the proposed writ of summons against ANZ as defendant.
A single justice of the High Court of Australia issued a decision dismissing the ex parte application seeking permission to file the proposed writ of summons without listing the application for hearing.
The justice deemed the proposed writ frivolous and vexatious on its face and potentially abusive of the court’s process if allowed to be filed. The justice held that the proposed writ appeared to summarize all the applicant’s grievances against ANZ over the years as a bank customer.
The justice said the proposed writ was long, almost impossible to follow, and lacking in a specific cause of action relied on by the applicant or factual allegations giving rise to an apparent cause of action. The justice added that the proposed writ and the applicant’s supporting affidavit included no claims with an intelligible basis for relief.
The decision noted that a justice deciding the application on its face would ordinarily exercise the discretion to refuse leave to file a writ initiating a proceeding if the document seemed frivolous, vexatious, abusive of the court’s process, or beyond its jurisdiction.
The decision deemed it implicit that the justice should determine the application for leave without an oral hearing since the consideration of the document was on its face.
