PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Vanuatu
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2000 >> [2000] VUSC 38

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Patunvanu v Westpac Banking Corporation [2000] VUSC 38; Civil Case 015 of 2000 (1 August 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 15 of 2000

BETWEEN:

JEFF PATUNVANU

Plaintiff

AND:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

First Defendant

AND:

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK

Second Defendant

AND:

ABDUL HAFEEZ MUHAMMAD

Third Defendant

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Ms Cynthia Thomas - Clerk

Appearing: Dr Godson Ijeh as Amicus Curiae and for the Plaintiff

Mr Garry Blake for the First Defendant

Mr Robert Sugden for the Third Defendant

DECISION

The First Defendant applies to have its name struck off as a party to this proceedings.

The issue is whether or not there is reasonable cause of action against the First Defendant.

Considering the evidence referred to me and the submissions made for and against the Application, I find -

1. There is no evidence that Westpac Bank was or is a party to the Stipulation Agreement which is alleged to have given rise to a duty to pay on a Promissory Note.

2. There is no evidence that Westpac Bank has been appointed as the Sole Agent for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

3. There is no evidence that Westpac Bank has accepted and honoured payment as "Payor" to other persons who presented Promissory Notes for payment.

4. There is no limitation or restriction on the Plaintiff to present the Promissory Note at other Banks in Vanuatu.

5. The Promissory Note here was in fact presented and refused by Westpac Bank after having made certain inquiries. It is therefore untrue to submit that the First Defendant did not accept the Promissory Note.

For those findings, it is my view that the Plaintiff's statement of claim fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the First Defendant. I therefore order that the First Defendant be struck off as a Party. Further it is ordered that the Plaintiff pays the First Defendant's costs. As against the Second and Third Defendants, costs to be costs in the cause.

DATED at Luganville this 1st day of August, 2000.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2000/38.html