National Australia Bank Ltd v Satchithanantham

Case •

[2012] NSWSC 1081

•

11 September 2012

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: National Australia Bank Ltd v Satchithanantham [2012] NSWSC 1081
Hearing dates:11/09/2012
Decision date: 11 September 2012
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:

Application for stay rejected

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for stay - consideration of the interests of justice of the parties to the proceedings and other litigants in the court
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: National Australia Bank (P)
Thambiappah Satchithanantham (D1)
Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham (D2)
Representation: Counsel:
N Bearup (P)
In person (D)
File Number(s):2011/259275

EX TEMPORE Judgment ON STAY APPLICATION

  1. Mr Satchithanantham has made an application for a stay of the Court's orders. I reject the application.

  1. The judgment which has been delivered this morning is a considered judgment of the Court, the effect of which is to restrain Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham from engaging in proceedings in the way specified in the order without the leave of the Court. The reasons in support of those orders are extensive and considered and the judgment is a final one unless and until it is overturned in the event that an appeal is filed or permitted to be filed. I do not regard the judgment as one which is just the first step in more proceedings.

  1. Secondly, the question of whether a stay should be granted is one which involves a consideration of the interests of justice of the parties to the proceedings and as well the interests of all of the other litigants in the Court. I am satisfied that the orders of the Court delivered this morning do not cause any injustice to Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham, protect the position of the plaintiff bank and are adequate to ensure that the interests of other litigants in the Court are properly preserved.

  1. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of justice for the application for a stay to be rejected.

  1. Thirdly, Mr Satchithanantham adduces no evidence in support of the application for a stay. There is no factual basis upon which that stay can be granted.

  1. For each of those reasons I have rejected the application for a stay. I publish my reasons.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 September 2012

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0