A dramatic and even comic scheme by an aggravated client of National Australia Bank to trick a key bank witness into a video “confession” has backfired, and not for the first time.

Anthony Smith, a small-time entrepreneur from Melbourne, was stranded, in late 2007, by NAB’s failure to follow through on an implied credit approval for a A$20 million loan – and Smith has been seeking payback more or less ever since.

Smith’s efforts to litigate his disappointments and alleged losses at the hands of the bank were leading nowhere.

So, in 2012, Smith and a couple of associates (a private detective and a public relations counsel) staged a meeting in Batam, Indonesia at which they hoped to get Andrew Gazal (a minor operative at NAB) drunk, and then inducing him to recant on past evidence in this affair (video recorded, of course).

In a Federal Court judgment last week dealing with Smith’s bid for orders for discovery, Justice Michael Lee surveyed the history, claims, legal issues and antics of Smith over the years.

The heart of this case ended up being over whether Smith’s claims, and his contention that the Federal Court (rather than the Queensland Supreme Court) had jurisdiction, had any merit.

On this score, Lee dismissed the trouble-maker’s claim with some scorn.

Lee also narrated the (ultimately discontinued) criminal prosecution of Smith, arising from complaints by NAB to the Queensland Police Service over their former client’s behaviour.

“As is evident from the whole of the evidence … Smith has no more than suspicion or conjecture, that he might find something in the privileged documents, or any further records of any communications between the NAB and the QPS, that would assist him in bringing any claim for malicious prosecution,” Lee wrote. 

“Moreover, having already in his possession an extensive record of documents evincing the communications between the NAB and the QPS, there is nothing to suggest reasonably that the documents, which include draft witness statements and records of interviews of Gazal prepared for use in the trial, would assist in making the decision to bring the tort of malicious prosecution.”