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

class="MsoNormal" aal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Civil Case No. 15 of 2000

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> BETWEEN:

JEFF PATUNVANU

Plaintiff

AND:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

First Defendant

AND:

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK

Second Defendant

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> AND:

Third Defendant

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 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

ass="MsoNormal" style="marg"margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The First Defe applies to have its name struck off as a party to this proceedings.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The issue is whether or not there is reale cause of action against the First Defendant.

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

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -18.0pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 1. &nsp; &

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

lass=ormalle="margin-left: 18.0pt; margin-top: 1;p: 1; marg margin-boin-bottom: 1">

3.ot;"> There is no evidence that Westpac Bank has accepted and honoured payment as "Payor" to other persons who pted Psory for paym/span>

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -18.0pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 4. &nsp; &

5. &bsp; ;&nbssp; p; Tpan>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 1^st day of August, 2000.

p class="MsoNormal" style="yle="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

BY THE COURT

<

Judge