I Cite as: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. v. Chengappa, 1992 NSCO 28 PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF HALIFAX I N T H E C 0 U N T Y OF DISTRICT NUMBER ONE BETWEEN: AUSTRALIA AND NEW GROUP LIMITED - DR. VINNIE CHENGAPPA Tim Hill, Esq., Counsel for the Plaintiff. A. L. Caldwell, Q.C., Counsel for the Defendant. ' 1992, April 3rd, an application for Summary Judgment. The Bank in Australia depositor to transfer $98,000.00 credit of the Defendant. By transfer twice and seeks After the transfer the Defendant moved to Nova Scotia.ยท ' C. H. NO. 7 6116 C 0 U R T ZEALAND BANKING Plaintiff and -Defendant Bateman, J.C.C.:- This is was instructed by a Indian Rupees to the mistake the Bank made the return of the overpayment.
- 2 -The Defendant acknowledges receipt of the money. She says the money was properly due her from the depositor and thus refuses to reimburse the Bank. The Plaintiff has Judgment, filing an affidavit Bank attesting to the mistake. The Defendant filed but was represented by counsel Defendant's counsel raised a number of technical objections including a concern that the ' to sue in this jurisdiction under the Corporations Registration Bank Act. He could cite no authority for the proposition that a Plaintiff must be circumstances. This is not transaction made in Nova Scotia. In an application initial onus is on the Plaintiff to present a prima facie case. If successful the burden Defendant to demonstrate why granted. To forestall judgment, is made out, the Defendant must brought action for Summary from an officer of the no material .in response at the application. Bank did not have status as it was not registered Act not the federal so registered in these a suit in relation to a for Summary Judgment, the then shifts to the judgment should not be once a prima facie case satisfy the court that
- 3 there is a fairly arguable point to be put forth on behalf of the Defendant. (Carl B. al (1976), 15 N.S.R. (2d) 408 (A.D.)). The Plaintiff has It is the Defendant 1 s position that as the Bank 1 s depositor, the money is due. however, begs the question the money to the Bank as payer. The Defendant referred The King [1931] 2 D.L.R. 685 supports return of the funds to the Bank. The Plaintiff by necessary facts. (The exchange agreed by the parties at the has failed to demonstrate that there remains be argued. Judgment of $7,245.19 is granted. shall have costs of $400.00 together with disbursements. Potter v. Antil Canada et made a prima facie case. between her and That position, of her liability to return me to Royal Bank v. (Man. K.B.). That case Affidavit has proved all rate to be applied was hearing). The Defendant a point to The Plaintiff
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.