National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham - [2012] NSWSC 959

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2012] NSWSC 959
Hearing dates: 29/02/2012; 01/03/2012; 02/03/2012; 05/03/2012
Decision date: 11 September 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Mr Thambiappah Satchithanantham be, and hereby is, prohibited from instituting proceedings whether by way of final relief, or by interlocutory motion, or application in New South Wales, whether in his own name, or in the name of any other individual, or corporation, or legal entity.
(2) Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham be, and hereby is, prohibited from instituting proceedings whether by way of final relief, or by interlocutory motion, or application in New South Wales, whether in her own name or in the name of any other individual, or corporation or legal entity.
(3) Order both Mr Satchithanantham and Mrs Satchithanantham pay the National Australia Bank's costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for vexatious proceeding order pursuant to s 8 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - whether proceedings are vexatious - whether vexatious proceedings were instituted or conducted frequently - repeated relitigation of issues
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Contracts Review Act 1980
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Real Property Act 1900
Supreme Court Act 1970
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315
Attorney General v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Attorney General v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Bylander v Multilink [2001] NSWCA 53
Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 20; (1998) 192 CLR 285
DPP (Cth) v Pirone (1997) 68 SASR 106; (1997) 139 FLR 68
King Mortgages v Satchithanantham; Cash King v Satchithanantham [2006] NSWSC 1303
La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries (1986) 72 ALR 23
Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261
National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported)
National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2010] NSWCA 244
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No.2) [2009] FCA 398
Pascoe v Liprini [2011] NSWSC 1484
Re A Solicitor's Clerk [1957] 3 All ER 617
Robertson v City of Nunawading [1973] VR 819; (1973) 29 LGRA 44
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2008] NSWADTAP 65
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) (RLD) [2008] NSWADTAP 87
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 411
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWSC, 30 March 2011, unreported)
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Sanjay Sarma t/as Adidev Enterprises [2007] NSWSC 642
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings [2009] NSWADT 237
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 316
Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 715
Satchi & Satchi v Sharma [2007] NSWSC 1184
Satchithanantham v Jackson Smith Lawyers [2011] NSWSC 412
Satchithanantham v King Mortgage Pty Ltd (in liq) [2010] HCASL 61
Satchithanantham v King Mortgages, Cash King Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 358
Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 974
Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1277
Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 914
Satchithanantham v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FCA 198
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FMCA 562
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] NSWCA 395
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] HCA Trans 101
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 243
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCTTT 494)
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWSC 1338
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWCA 213
Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWSC 402
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] NSWCA 168
National Australia Bank Limited v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] FMCA 229
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported)
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 23 May 2007, unreported)
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2008] FMCA 940
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 1171
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 501
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 181
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 201
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] NSWCA 268
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47
Satchithanantham v Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported)
Satchithanantham v Steffel [2008] NSWSC 1153
Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2007] NSWADTAP 74
Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2009] NSWADTAP 53
Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 30
Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] HCA SLD 586
Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham [2008] NSWADT 165
Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] NSWADT 70
Texts Cited: Dennis Charles and Robert Stanley Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 7th ed (2011) Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: National Australia Bank (P)
Thambiappah Satchithanantham (D1)
Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham (D2)
Representation: Counsel:
A Leopold SC / Ms Bearup (P)
T Satchithanantham (In person - D1 and D2)
Solicitors:
Dibbs Barker (P)
T Satchithanantham (In person - D1 and D2)

File Number(s): 2011/259275

Judgment

Mr Thambiappah Satchithanantham is a man who regards the legal principle of the finality of litigation as entirely inapplicable to him, or any case in which he thinks he has an interest.

For nearly seven years, Mr Satchithanantham has been engaged in litigation in this Court with the National Australia Bank. Although he was not joined originally as a defendant to the proceedings, having sought and been refused leave to be added as a party, he has instituted various proceedings by way of notices of motion, notices of appeal, and summonses, which have resulted in a total of 34 separate judgments of Judges of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Common Law Division and Registrars of the Court of Appeal and the Common Law Division. In not one of those judgments has he been successful.

On two occasions, he has sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal to the High Court of Australia. On each of those occasions, he has been unsuccessful.

It is unsurprising then, that the NAB has moved this Court for orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, to restrain Mr Satchithanantham, and his wife, Mrs Satchithanantham, from bringing any more proceedings against it, or anyone else, without first obtaining leave of the Court.

This is not an order that is lightly made.

For the reasons which follow, I am abundantly satisfied that it is in the public interest to make the appropriate orders against Mr Thambiappah Satchithanantham, and his wife, Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham, pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

An Overview

In this Court, the National Australia Bank ("NAB") sued Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham, the wife of Mr Satchithanantham, with whom he was then living, to recover a loan made to her in April 2003, and to take possession of a property at Westmead that was mortgaged as a security for the loan. Mrs Satchithanantham was the only registered proprietor of the property. NAB was ultimately largely, but not completely, successful.

Mr Satchithanantham sought to be added as a party to the litigation. He was unsuccessful. It will be convenient to refer to these proceedings as "the principal proceedings". The principal proceedings were decided by McCallum J on 6 February 2008. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 2 September 2009.

Mr Satchithanantham has commenced satellite litigation against the NAB and others:

(a) in 2010, he commenced proceedings in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal against the NAB. This resulted in an unsuccessful appeal to the District Court of NSW, and proceedings in this Court involving five decisions by four Judges of the Equity Division;

(b) in 2007, Mr Satchithanantham and his sister brought two sets of proceedings, unsuccessfully, against the NAB and its lawyers Dibbs Abbott Stillman (as the firm was then known), with respect to property at Kingswood; and

(c) in the bankruptcy jurisdiction, an application for a sequestration order, made by the NAB has resulted in eight judgments of the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court of Australia. In each judgment, Mr Satchithanantham was unsuccessful. As well, two applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court arising from the bankruptcy litigation were unsuccessful.

As will also become apparent, Mr Satchithanantham has been involved in other litigation against six different individuals and companies. This litigation occurred in the Local Court of NSW, the Federal Magistrates Court, the Administration Decisions Tribunal in NSW, the Supreme Court of NSW, including the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia.

In some of these matters, Mr Satchithanantham has sought to participate as a party and appear for himself. In other cases, he has sought to appear for his wife, and also from time to time, for his son Bramooth Satchithanantham. He has regularly filed notices of motion in their names and his own. Sometimes the notices of motion are in his name alone or else in his wife's name only. There is no doubt that he has been the prime mover behind all of these proceedings.

His wife has been a compliant party, and has authorised Mr Satchithanantham in most of the proceedings to file documents in her name, or on her behalf, and has authorised him to appear for her, or else on her behalf.

Looked at generally, most, if not all, of the documents which he has filed have the following features in common:

(a) they are lengthy and prolix;

(b) they are repetitive, in that many of the documents repeat, often by simple copying, large parts of earlier documents, or else seek to incorporate, by reference to earlier proceedings, allegations previously made;

(c) make little or no sense in setting out a comprehensible legal cause of action, or a proper legal basis for the orders sought;

(d) are embarrassing, as that term is used in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules; and

(e) contain statements about judicial officers or other parties which were scandalous.

As the details recounted later in this judgment amply demonstrate, the time has now come for this Court to say, putting it simply, that enough is enough. Neither Mr or Mrs Satchithanantham can any longer be trusted to exercise their freedom to bring and participate in litigation, without the supervision of the Court. The corporations and individuals with which or with whom they have engaged, are entitled to be protected against further vexatious proceedings. The limited resources and needs of this Court, and other courts and tribunals, must be protected against the expense, burden, and inconvenience of baseless and repetitive suits. The public interest in allowing other litigants adequate and timely access to the Courts, must prevail over Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham's private interests, and Mr Satchithanantham's personal obsession with litigation against, principally, the NAB, but also other parties.

The Court must give proper attention to the overriding purpose described in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, and Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham must give proper attention to their duties set out in that section, which to date, they have been quite unable to do. And so it is that the Court will make the appropriate orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

Mrs Satchithanantham

Mrs Satchithanantham was a respondent to the motion brought by the NAB seeking orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act. She was properly served.

When the proceedings were called on for hearing, Mrs Satchithanantham did not appear in person, nor did any lawyer attend on her behalf. Mr Satchithanantham sought leave to represent her. I declined that leave because in the course of the submissions, Mr Satchithanantham informed me that he and his wife were separated, and I could not be adequately satisfied that he was authorised to appear for his wife.

As the review of the litigation which is carried out later in this judgment demonstrates, Mrs Satchithanantham has been named as an applicant, together with Mr Satchithanantham, and from time to time their son, Bramooth, in a very large number of the motions and other documents which have been filed. Her signature appears on many of the documents. Occasionally, she has attended in Court. There is no doubt in my mind that she has been a knowing participant in the litigation.

Her non-appearance conveys to me that she does not wish to resist the orders sought by the NAB. In light of the material which follows, and in light of her not appearing to oppose the orders, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders sought by the NAB against her.

Although I do not overlook Mrs Satchithanantham's status as a respondent in the NAB's motion, throughout the judgment, it will be more convenient to refer, generally, to Mr Satchithanantham and his conduct and behaviour. What is said of Mr Satchithanantham is sufficiently applicable to Mrs Satchithanantham to ground the orders against her.

The Hearing

The hearing of the proceedings occupied four days. During that time, Mr Satchithanantham sought to make a number of applications. They were principally related to having the Court make orders adjourning the proceedings. These applications were dealt with by the delivery of ex tempore judgments, as well other applications which related to compelling the NAB to call identified individuals as witnesses or to produce documents, were dealt with in the course of the hearing.

At one point in the hearing, Mr Satchithanantham sought to call upon a Notice to Produce addressed to the NAB which required, in effect, that the NAB produce every document in the NAB's possession dealing with any litigation in which Mr Satchithanantham has been involved. He called upon this Notice, by way of filing an application to have the decision of the Common Law Registrar which, correctly, set aside the Notice, reviewed. This application provided a good example of Mr Satchithanantham's complete lack of understanding of, or else deliberate ignorance of, the obligations of a litigant in any proceedings.

Repeatedly throughout the hearing, Mr Satchithanantham sought to advance submissions, and call evidence designed to demonstrate that the decision of McCallum J, in the principal proceedings, which had been upheld in the Court of Appeal, was wrong. Notwithstanding that I pointed out to Mr Satchithanantham that the correctness of the judgment of McCallum J was not in issue in these proceedings, he persisted throughout the hearing in seeking to make further submissions about it. I was left with the clear impression that Mr Satchithanantham was quite unable to set aside that issue, and that he was determined to pursue it and ignore anything which he perceived was intended to prevent him relitigating the final judgment, including any directions from, or orders of, the Court.

I record these matters so as to make clear their relevance. In deciding whether the NAB has discharged its onus of demonstrating as required by s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, that Mr Satchithanantham has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, these matters are entirely irrelevant, and do not provide any foundational fact.

However, the making of any order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, is ultimately a matter for a discretionary judgment. The manner in which Mr Satchithanantham has conducted himself during the hearing of this application, including the applications which he has made, the submissions which he has put and the nature of the evidence he has sought to tender, are all matters which might properly be considered when the Court considers the necessity, in the public interest, of making the orders sought.

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

This Act, which I shall refer to as the "VP Act" was introduced to replace s 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The VP Act differed in material respects from the previous provisions. A new test was created. New definitions were included. It is necessary to set out the important and relevant provisions.

Section 4 defines what the term "proceedings" includes. It is in these terms:

"In this Act, proceedings includes:

(a) any cause, matter, action, suit, proceedings, trial, complaint or inquiry of any kind within the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal, and

(b) any proceedings (including any interlocutory proceedings) taken in connection with or incidental to proceedings pending before a court or tribunal, and

(c) any calling into question of a decision, whether or not a final decision, of a court or tribunal, and whether by appeal, challenge, review or in another way."

Section 5 defines what is meant by the term "institute" when used in relation to proceedings. It is sufficient for me to note, that in relation to civil proceedings, the term includes commencing proceedings, whether final or interlocutory, or the taking of any necessary preparatory step to commence proceedings.

Section 6 defines what is meant by the phrase "vexatious proceedings". I note that this is an inclusive definition. It is in the following terms:

"In this Act, 'vexatious proceedings' includes:

(a) proceedings that are an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal, and

(b) proceedings instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for another wrongful purpose, and

(c) proceedings instituted or pursued without reasonable ground, and

(d) proceedings conducted in a way so as to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or achieve another wrongful purpose."

Proceedings may fall into one or more of the categories set out in s 6. That is because the description in s 6(a) may well be applicable to proceedings which carry the descriptions set out in the other subsections. As well, because s 6(b) requires an assessment of subjective intention, it is entirely possible that, whether or not that subjective intention exists, the proceedings viewed objectively, may fall within s 6(d): see Attorney-General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315 at [33] per Adamson J; Pascoe v Liprini [2011] NSWSC 1484 at [10] per Adamson J.

Section 8 is the principal operative provision in the VP Act as it applies to these proceedings. It is in the following terms:

"(1) An authorised court may make an order under this section (a "vexatious proceedings order") in relation to a person if the court is satisfied that:

(a) the person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia, or

(b) the person, acting in concert with a person who is subject to a vexatious proceedings order or who is referred to in paragraph (a), has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an authorised court may have regard to:

(a) proceedings instituted or conducted in any Australian court or tribunal (including proceedings instituted or conducted before the commencement of this section), and

(b) orders made by any Australian court or tribunal (including orders made before the commencement of this section).

(3) An authorised court must not make a vexatious proceedings order in relation to a person without hearing the person or giving the person an opportunity of being heard.

...

(7) The Supreme Court may make any one or more of the following vexatious proceedings orders in relation to a person:

(a) an order staying all or part of any proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by the person,

(b) an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings in New South Wales,

(c) any other order that the Court considers appropriate in relation to the person."

Part 3 of the VP Act provides for the consequences of the making of a vexatious proceedings order under s 8. It is unnecessary to set out here the details of this Part.

Vexatious Proceedings - Legal Principles

It is appropriate to consider the principles which are applicable to applications under the VP Act. In so doing, it is necessary to note that in applying decisions which refer to the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, regard needs to be had to the changed provisions under the VP Act.

Perram J in the Federal Court of Australia, in dealing with the application of Order 21 of the Federal Court Rules, which was in a form similar to s 84 of the Supreme Court Act, enunciated the applicable principles, in Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No.2) [2009] FCA 398 at [2] ff in this way:

"2. A comprehensive explanation of what makes a proceeding vexatious is difficult to proffer for the boundary between the persistent and over-zealous on the one hand, and the vexatious on the other, may at times be indistinct. However, the following principles are, at least, well-established. First, the making of such an order is an extreme remedy depriving its object of recourse to the enforcement of the law which is every citizen's ordinary right. It is, therefore, not lightly to be made.

3. Secondly, the purpose of the order is not to impose condign punishment for past litigious misdeeds; it serves instead to shield both the public, whose individual members might be molested by vexatious proceedings, and the Court itself, whose limited resources and needs must be carefully managed and protected from the expense, burden and inconvenience of baseless and repetitious suits.

4. Thirdly, as might naturally be expected, such a severe power is not enlivened by the mere single occurrence of a vexatious claim. To err is human and transient lapses of judgment, even serious ones, may be found in the most reasonable of places. Instead, the power to make the order is conditional upon the litigant having commenced not only a single vexatious proceeding but also upon having commenced similar such proceedings in this Court or in other Australian courts.

5. Fourthly, the qualities of vexation to which O 21 is addressed are to be found, as the terms of r 1(1) show, in the commencement by the litigant of proceedings which lack reasonable grounds and where the litigant's institution of such proceedings may fairly be said to be both habitual and persistent.

6. Fifthly, whether a proceeding is instituted without reasonable grounds is a different question to, although not wholly disconnected from, the inquiry into a proceeding's legal merits. The wheat, no doubt, must be separated from the chaff but in this area the question is whether what is before the Court contains any wheat at all. Although, often enough, no great guidance is obtained by exchanging one formula of words with another, it will be usually of some assistance, limited perhaps, to ask whether the issues brought to the Court for determination are manifestly hopeless or devoid of merit. It is, in that context, important to distinguish the difficult from the ridiculous and the unlikely from the hopeless.

7. Sixthly, although the ways in which unreasonable grounds may manifest themselves are myriad, one form often to be found in the baggage of the vexatious is a failure, often a refusal, to understand the principles of finality of litigation which rescue court and litigant alike from a Samsara of past forensic encounters.

8. Seventhly, it is the related quality of repetition which underpins, in part, a need for the institution of the proceedings to deserve the appellations habitual and persistent. The litigant's conduct will be habitual where the commencement of proceedings occurs as a matter of course when appropriate conditions for their commencement are present as was explained by Roden J in Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 at 492. That formulation may not wholly explain the litigant who commences proceedings on any occasion and without the presence of any conditions, whether appropriate or otherwise. In such cases, the idea of constant repetition driven by habit and symptomatic of an inability not to engage in the behaviour may be more useful. Persistence, on the other hand, generally suggests stubborn determination but, in the context of the vexatious, carries with it the capacity to endure failure beyond the point at which a rational person would abandon the field.

9. Eighthly, each of these notions - the want of reasonable grounds, habitual institution and persistent institution - are to be gauged objectively. But this does not mean that a litigant's own protestation as to his or her own mental state is irrelevant; frequently enough, the vexatious are betrayed out of their own mouths. Rather, the need for objective determination protects courts from the vexatious litigant who is genuinely, but misguidedly, persuaded as to the correctness of his or her own conduct.

10. Ninthly, the power to make the order arises when proceedings commenced in the way described are found to exist. But the notion of a proceeding is a broad one including a substantive proceeding directed at the attainment of final relief and collateral applications within such a proceeding; further, it extends outside the proceeding itself and embraces appeals therefrom and applications which, whilst not made in the proceeding, are properly to be seen as collateral thereto - so much flows from the definition of proceeding in s 4 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

11. Tenthly, other proceedings commenced before bodies which are not courts, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, are not directly pertinent to the existence of the power but may nevertheless throw light on the vexatious nature of proceedings before the Court; so too, the existence of a body of such administrative litigation may have relevance to the question of whether the Court's power to make the order, once enlivened, should be exercised.

12. Finally, once it is concluded that the Court's power to prevent a litigant from commencing or pursuing proceedings has been enlivened, the considerations germane to the exercise of that power are unconfined. However, the factors which will be relevant are informed by the protective purpose which the order serves. Where a litigant displays insight into their previous litigious history this will, no doubt, be relevant for it will suggest - although not determine - a diminution in the risk posed to the public. On the other hand, the manner in which a litigant conducts herself in her affairs generally is also capable of throwing light on whether the commencement of further vexatious proceedings is likely. Those general affairs include the litigant's defence to the proceedings by which the order restraining him is sought. Because of the protective nature of the jurisdiction it is also relevant to know the extent of the damage and inconvenience the litigant's forays into the courts have caused, pecuniary or otherwise."

Davies J has summarised the applicable principles in a way with which, if I may say with respect, I entirely agree, in Attorney General v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008 at [9]-[17]. Of these principles, Davies J said in Attorney General v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192, this:

"7 I discussed in Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008 at [9]-[17] the principles associated with the making of an order under s 8(1)(a) of the Act. Those matters may be summarised as follows:

(a) the test of "frequently" is a less demanding test than was required under s 84 Supreme Court Act 1970;

(b) the term "frequently" is a relative term and must be looked at in the context of the litigation being considered;

(c) the number of proceedings considered may be small if the proceedings are an attempt to re-litigate an issue already determined against the person;

(d) regard may be had to applications made by the person in proceedings commenced against that person;

(e) regard may be had to the way the person has behaved and conducted himself or herself in the proceedings before the Court;

(f) regard may be had to proceedings in any Australian court or tribunal;

(g) regard may be had to the findings and result in the proceedings under consideration."

I also with respect, entirely agree with Adamson J in Pascoe v Liprini at [14] and [18] with respect to applications of this kind. Her Honour said:

"14 The term 'frequently' is relative; it must be looked at in the context of the litigation being considered: Wilson at [12]; Attorney General (NSW) v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942 at [22]; Attorney General v Gargan at [7]; Siteberg Pty Ltd v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344 at [31]-[32]. It is not necessary for a person to commence a large number of proceedings in order for it to be said that the person has done so frequently: Siteberg at [31]. The individual number of proceedings can be quite small if, for example, they are an attempt to re-litigate an issue already determined against the person: Wilson at [14]; Attorney General v Gargan at [7].

...

18 While the Court needs to form its own view about each piece of litigation relied on by the Plaintiff, the Court is entitled to have regard to the result of the proceedings, and where appropriate, the findings of, and views expressed by, the various judicial officers who dealt with them: Wilson at [22]; Attorney General v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942 at [125]; Attorney General v Gargan at [7]. "

The requisite test with which the Court must be satisfied before an order can be made is that, here Mr Satchithanantham and Mrs Satchithanantham have:

"... frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings ...".

In understanding this test, there are thus, two steps: first, have Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham instituted, or conducted vexatious proceedings and, second, have they done so frequently.

As Davies J noted in Wilson at [11], the adverb frequently describes the sum of the vexatious proceedings relied upon and is properly seen, as a relative term, within the context that, orders made under the VP Act of the kind sought here, are a significant matter "... because it is a serious thing to deprive litigants of their access to the courts, a right which might be thought to be an inherent right for persons living in a democratic society under the rule of law ...".

However, I would add to this expression of principle, that whilst a democratic society does place great emphasis on the right of access to the courts, such right carries with it a responsibility. That responsibility rests on the individual litigant to exercise such access appropriately and not abuse the right, lest such inappropriate use of the right of access denies to, or adversely affects the rights of, other litigants to enjoy their right of access to the same court system. In a democratic society, no right is unconstrained by a responsibility to one's fellow citizens.

In addition, there is one further issue of legal principle which needs to be considered in this application.

The proceedings which are relied upon by the NAB include proceedings which were instituted and conducted by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham before 1 December 2008, which is the date of assent of the VP Act, and its date of commencement. The issue which arises is one of potential retrospectivity, namely, in the absence of a clear legislative intention to make the VP Act retrospective, the Court should assume that it was not intended to have retrospective operation: Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261 at 267 per Dixon CJ.

But as Pearce and Geddes make clear in Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 7th ed (2011) Lexis Nexis Butterworths at [10-4], it is important to draw a distinction between legislation having a prior effect on past events and legislation which bases future action on past events.

The VP Act will not have a retrospective operation where any order which can be made, is prospective and operates only for the future, even though it may be based on past conduct. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria put the matter succinctly in Robertson v City of Nunawading [1973] VR 819; (1973) 29 LGRA 44 at 824, saying:

"[The] principle is not concerned with the case where the enactment under consideration merely takes account of antecedent facts and circumstances as a basis for which it prescribes for the future, and it does no more than that."

Other examples of the application of this principle can be found in La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries (1986) 72 ALR 23; Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 20; (1998) 192 CLR 285 and DPP (Cth) v Pirone (1997) 68 SASR 106; (1997) 139 FLR 68.

The position is no different from that with which the UK Court of Appeal was confronted in Re A Solicitor's Clerk [1957] 3 All ER 617. At 619, the Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, with whom Barry and Havers JJ agreed, said of an amendment that it:

"... enables an order to be made disqualifying a person from acting as a solicitor's clerk in the future and what happened in the past is the cause or reason for the making of the order; but the order has no retrospective effect."

I am accordingly satisfied that I can take into account any proceedings which were instituted or conducted by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham before 1 December 2008.

It is now necessary, in light of the legislation and the principles, to consider the litigation in which Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham have been involved.

Background

The long history of litigation between NAB and Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham commenced in the principal proceedings in 2005. The original proceedings, appeal to the Court of Appeal and application for special leave to appeal to the High Court are accepted by NAB as non-vexatious. These will be detailed shortly.

Rather, NAB submits Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham made frequent interlocutory applications in the principal proceedings, "most of [which], and the subsequent reviews or appeals instituted following their dismissal, were vexatious".

The applications considered in the judgment fall into the following ten categories:

(1) Mr Satchithanantham attempting to be joined as a party,

(2) Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham attempting to prevent enforcement of orders,

(3) Further vexatious applications following the dismissal of a Special Leave application to the High Court of Australia.

(4) Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal proceedings

(5) Other proceedings involving NAB as a party

(6) Bankruptcy proceedings

(7) Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd proceedings

(8) Other proceedings

(9) Multilink Investments Pty Ltd proceedings

(10) King Mortgages Pty Ltd and Cash King Pty Ltd proceedings

Principal Proceedings

2009 Judgment and Orders of McCallum J

On 10 November 2005, the National Australia Bank ("the NAB") brought proceedings against Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham in the Supreme Court, to recover a loan made to Mrs Satchithanantham in April 2003, and to take possession of a property at Westmead ("the property"), which Mrs Satchithanantham had mortgaged to the NAB as security for the loan.

Mrs Satchithanantham was at all material times, the sole registered proprietor of the premises. The property was originally purchased in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham, but became registered in Mrs Satchithanantham's name following Mr Satchithanantham's first bankruptcy.

Mrs Satchithanantham defended the proceedings. The hearing took place between April and September 2008 before McCallum J, and judgment was delivered on 6 February 2009.

The final orders were made on 3 March 2009, when McCallum J ordered that:

(1) NAB have possession of the property, and

(2) Mrs Satchithanantham pay $461,043.74 (rather than the actual loan amount of $679,000),

(3) Mrs Satchithanantham pay two-thirds of NAB's costs.

On 7 April 2009, an application by Mrs Satchithanantham for a stay of the final orders was dismissed by McCallum J. However, on 18 May 2009, Ipp JA stayed the final orders until the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the hearing of which had been expedited to 1 July 2009.

The Court of Appeal, constituted by Giles, Hodgson and Young JJA, dismissed the appeal on 2 September 2009, but extended the stay with conditions until 1 November 2009: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] NSWCA 268.

On 26 March 2010, subsequent to Mrs Satchithanantham filing an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court on 30 September 2009, oral argument was fixed for 23 April 2010, and a stay was granted on the final orders until 30 April 2010, with the consent of NAB.

On 23 April 2010, the application for special leave was heard by French CJ and Kiefel J (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] HCA Trans 101). In dismissing the application French CJ stated:

"we are firmly of the view that there should be no grant of special leave ... No error of principle or any other error which would justify the grant of special leave by this Court has been shown. The application for special leave to appeal will be dismissed with costs".

Eviction of the occupants of the property took place on 26 May 2010.

The property was sold by the agents for the mortgagee in possession via a public auction on 25 September 2010, and contracts were exchanged on the same day for $860,000. The purchasers were Anusuya Nagendra and Nagendra Seetaramiah.

Mr Satchithanantham's Joinder Applications

Notice of motion - Sully J - 11 September 2006

A month after the statement of claim was filed, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion on 2 December 2005, seeking orders that both he and his 16 year old son, Bramooth Satchithanantham, be joined as defendants in the proceedings. The motion was heard by Sully J on 11 September 2006, together with another motion.

The application was made "upon the basis that both the applicant and the son are 'occupiers' of the subject premises". Mr Satchithanantham tendered a document entitled "Memorandum of Family Deed of Trust" as evidence that he and his son each held a one-third equitable interest in the property. Sully J found that, as far his Honour understood Mr Satchithanantham's evidence from the bar table, it was

"not controversial, at least from his point of view, that the document and its contents were not made available to, or in any way disclosed to the bank either in the whole or in part before the making of the mortgage advance":

National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported) at 8-9.

There was also a second document, a current lease for storage of goods for a third party.

Sully J dismissed the application. His Honour did not finally decide whether Mr Satchithanantham was an occupier, but indicated he was "far from persuaded that is the case", and ultimately dismissed the application because rather than being conducive to doing justice in the principal proceedings, the joinder would tend in the opposite direction.

"The one thing that the proceedings, as at present constituted does not need, unless there is some imperative reason founded in the requirements of justice, is to add one, still less two, defendants to the principal proceedings, when all that would bring in its wake would be further delay, further technical skirmishes, further obfuscation of simple issues, further waste of time and further waste of costs":

National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported) at 12.

Application for leave to appeal against decision of Sully J - 23 May 2007

Mr Satchithanantham applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the decision of Sully J. The Court found, consistently with the judgment of Sully J, that although there was no dispute about the validity of the documents for the purpose of the joinder application, there was no evidence that NAB had knowledge of the interests in the property. Beazley and Tobias JJA dismissed the application, but for slightly different reasons to Sully J. Their Honours concluded that a joinder would be "futile" because Mr Satchithanantham and his son

"had no rights in relation to the National Australia Bank in circumstances where the bank was not on notice of any equitable interest which they might have in the property and that their occupation was mere occupation ... Likewise in respect of the lease ... that is a matter for the lessee as against the National Australia Bank":

Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 23 May 2007, unreported) at [8]-[9].

Subsequent repetition of the joinder application

Seven further repetitious proceedings were subsequently instituted by Mr Satchithanantham for joinder of himself and his son as defendants in the principal proceedings. I am satisfied that each of these notices of motion constituted vexatious proceedings within the meaning of the VP Act, because the applications were instituted and pursued without any reasonable ground. As well, having regard to the judgments of Sully J and the Court of Appeal, the continued attempts to relitigate the same issue was an abuse of the process of the Court.

By notice of motion dated 15 June 2007, Mr Satchithanantham sought orders that he and his son be joined as a third party to the principal proceedings. The application included similar, so called "equitable interest" grounds as the first joinder application.

On 25 June 2007 in an oral judgment dismissing the application with costs, Registrar Bradford held that

"if an interlocutory application has been made unsuccessfully it is generally inappropriate to make a subsequent application for the same orders. At least this is so if there has been no material change of circumstances and the subsequent application is based on substantially the same evidence. This seems to be a situation which falls within that summary".

On about 26 July 2007, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking orders to add himself and his son as defendants, and to set aside the orders made by Registrar Bradford on 25 June 2007. In dismissing the notice of motion (or appeal) on 24 September 2007, Malpass AsJ said

"There is nothing to suggest anything new or different. All the grounds were stated in the previous notices of motion and indicated repetition".

On referral from Malpass AsJ, Registrar Bradford made an order for costs.

On or about 19 October 2007, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking to add himself and his son as defendants, and to set aside the orders made by Malpass AsJ. The application was dismissed by James J on 12 December 2007, who said in his reasons at [18] and [19]:

"[t]here is no, or very little, admissible affidavit evidence before me which would provide a foundation for any of Mr Satchithanantham's assertions. I do not consider that Mr Satchithanantham has shown any new grounds which have not already been considered by judicial officers in one or other of the applications he has made".

James J also made orders, in response to a notice of motion from NAB that restrained Mr Satchithanantham from filing and serving any notice of motion, and from making any oral application in the proceedings without leave. Costs were ordered in NAB's favour in the fixed sum of $10,000.

Mr Satchithanantham filed an application for leave to appeal from the orders of James J refusing to join him as a party to the principal proceedings. The application was dismissed with costs by Mason P and Handley AJA, Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported). After describing the successive nature of joinder applications, Mason P noted:

"His Honour [James J] also considered the matter quite independently of the decisions of the other judicial officers and concluded that he was not satisfied that Mr Satchithanantham had discharged the onus of showing that he should be joined as a party.

In my view his Honour was entirely correct in that conclusion. To add Mr Satchithanantham as a party in the proceedings between the Bank and his wife would only serve to confuse the issues that are involved in those proceedings."

On or about 29 May 2008, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking, inter alia, to set aside the orders of James J made on 12 December 2007, and to join Bramooth Satchithanantham as a defendant and cross claimant in the principal proceedings. Registrar Schell dismissed the motion with costs on 16 June 2008.

On or about 25 June 2008, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking to, inter alia,

"Review the orders made by the court from 14/4/08 till date and grant appropriate relief as to the orders sought in the applicants' joinder applications/leave to appeal in this court involved in the file matter: 40044/08".

In dismissing the notice of motion (or appeal) with costs on 14 July 2008, Campbell JA said

"it is fundamentally opposed to the way in which the appellate structure operates for a single judge to review a decision that have been given by a bench of 2 judges, that disposes the application before the court. There is simply no jurisdiction to make [the order], insofar as it seeks review of the decision of 14 May 2008": Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] NSWCA 168 at [11].

Mr Satchithanantham applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from the 14 May 2008 orders of Mason P and Handley AJA. The application was dismissed on 10 December 2008 on the basis that "An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success": Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] HCSL 586 per Hayne and Crennan JJ at [2].

Attempts To Prevent Enforcement Of Orders

As I have said above, the final orders in the principal proceedings were made on 3 March 2009 by McCallum J. There was a stay on the final orders extending to 1 November 2009, due to an order by the Court of Appeal on 2 September 2009.

However, five further vexatious proceedings were instituted by Mr and/or Mrs Satchithanantham to stay the final orders.

(1) Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed a motion in their names dated 14 May 2009, and in the name of Bramooth Satchithanantham, seeking, inter alia, to stay the final orders. Twenty-three "grounds of appeal" were listed, which included that "the applicants stand to suffer irreparable injury and prejudice and undue hardship" if a stay was not granted pending the Court of Appeal hearing. The grounds also alleged various misrepresentations to the Court by legal representatives for the NAB and Hoeben J. On 1 July 2009, Mrs Satchithanantham, through her legal representative Mr Patel, elected not to move on the motion. Mr Satchithanantham moved on the motion, which was dismissed with costs.

(2) Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion dated 25 May 2009 seeking, inter alia, to vary or discharge the orders made by Ipp JA on 18 May 2009. The 12 grounds included allegations that the orders of Ipp JA were heard and determined on duress, that NAB's legal representatives misled Ipp JA and that due to financial constraints, lack of legal representation and health reasons it would not be possible to comply with the timetable required in advance of the Court of Appeal hearing. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court for the hearing of the notice of motion, which was dismissed by Giles JA on 15 June 2009.

(3) Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion dated 11 September 2009 seeking, inter alia, to stay the orders made by the Court of Appeal on 2 September 2009, general stay orders and to relist Mrs Satchithanantham's stay motion dated 14 May 2009 described above, which on 1 July 2009 was not proceeded with by her. The thirty-one grounds canvassed allegations of collusion, fraud and misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of NAB. In addition, issues of Mrs Satchithanantham's representation and health were included. Finally, submissions challenged the validity and amount owing under the loan facility. Both Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were present in Court for the hearing of the motion.

Young JA dismissed the motion with costs on 27 October 2009, on the basis that the lack of evidence before the Court precluded any justification for a further stay. However, his Honour ordered that the writ of possession be stayed until 17 November 2009, provided Mrs Satchithanantham made a payment to the NAB for interest in the sum of $4,000.

(4) On 6 November 2009, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed a motion, additionally naming Bramooth Satchithanantham as an applicant, seeking to review the orders made by Young JA on 27 October 2009, and seeking a stay pending an application for special leave to the High Court, to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision of 2 September 2009. The grounds challenged the validity of the loan facility and continued interest charges, and alleged counsel for NAB had misled Young JA on 27 October 2009. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court for the hearing. Mr Satchithanantham accepted at the hearing of the motion that although his name and his son's name were added as parties on the motion, his wife was the only appropriate party.

The motion was heard on 17 November 2009, and dismissed with costs by the Court of Appeal on 4 December 2009: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] NSWCA 395. Allsop P, with Basten JA and Handley AJA agreeing, said at [27]

"[t]he application for special leave is less than fully coherent"

and at [34]

"I am not presently persuaded on the basis of Mr Patel's submissions to this Court on the substantive appeal and from how Young JA dealt with the matter that there is an available ground of appeal".

(5) On 18 March 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in his own name and in the names of Mrs Satchithanantham, his son and Satchi & Satchi Australia, seeking various orders directed at preventing the execution of NAB's writ of possession, which was scheduled to take place on 31 March 2010. In addition to orders regarding the amount owing to NAB, the orders sought in excess of $1 million in damages from NAB. The grounds contained allegations regarding the proposed sale of the property, personal hardship and false and misleading conduct by NAB's legal representatives to obtain the writ of possession.

(6) The application was dismissed on 23 March 2010 by Hoeben J. At the hearing Mr Satchithanantham falsely claimed that on 4 December 2009 Basten JA had granted a stay of the final orders until the High Court application was determined. In dismissing the application, Hoeben J said at [12]:

"Mrs Satchithanantham, first of all, you are in the wrong Court. But, in any event, I have read the judgments. I have read the judgment of Justice McCallum. I have read the two judgments of the Court of Appeal. There is nothing, nothing you have said to me today which would justify me in granting you a stay, even if I had the power, which I do not."

Each of these proceedings was vexatious because there was no reasonable grounds for the somewhat extravagant grounds set out as a basis for the orders. The inclusion of these grounds, and a claim for $1 million in damages were such as to lead only to a conclusion that the proceedings were instituted to, or else had the effect of, causing a delay in the NAB's attempts to enforce the Court's orders. I am satisfied that, as well, each of these applications, because of the content of them, and the identity of Mr Satchithanantham and his son, Bramooth, as moving parties, that each of them constituted an abuse of the process of the Court.

Further Applications Following Dismissal of Special Leave Application

Sixteen further vexatious applications were made following the dismissal on 23 April 2010 of Mrs Satchithanantham's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

On 27 April 2010, a notice of motion was signed by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham seeking orders directed at preventing the execution of the writ of possession by the respondent NAB. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court when the motion was heard and dismissed with costs by McClellan CJ at CL on 29 April 2010, who said

"the defendant has pursued but now exhausted all of her available legal remedies and I am satisfied that there would be no justice in my continuing the stay".

On 30 April 2010, Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, seeking to prevent execution by the respondent NAB on its writ of possession and orders regarding the amount owed to NAB. R S Hulme J dismissed the application with costs in the presence of Mrs Satchithanantham on 19 May 2010, saying:

"with regard to the material which is before me, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the current applications are an abuse of process, firstly because nothing new has been put before me to indicate substantial new matters which could not have been put before Justice McClellan, or perhaps which were not put before him and, secondly, because it was clear that at least most of the matters which the defendant relies upon in support of the application for a stay were matters which, were they to be seriously contended, should reasonably have been brought to Court long before this."

On 19 May 2010, Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal proceedings, seeking a stay of the writ of possession against the respondent NAB and that the final orders by McCallum J of 3 March 2009 be set aside. The grounds claimed two previous notices of motion had not been dealt with, namely those dated 12 February 2009 and 14 May 2009. In addition, there was a challenge to the calculation of the debt secured on the applicant's property. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court when the application was dismissed by Hodgson JA on 24 May 2010 with costs (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118). His Honour said at [3]-[5] these were

"3 ... matters that could (and should, if they were to be relied upon) have been raised in the appeal proceedings which resulted in a judgment of the Court of Appeal on 2 September 2009. The merits of the appeal were also further considered to some extent in a further judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4 December 2009. A special leave application to the High Court of Australia was dismissed on 23 April 2010.

4. In my opinion, these matters cannot now be sought to be agitated in the light of that history.

5. I would add, however, that it does not seem to me that there could be any substantial merit in the matters now sought to be raised."

On 7 June 2010, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal (also naming their son as an applicant), seeking a stay of the orders made by McCallum J on 3 March 2009, a review of the orders of Hodgson JA of 24 May 2010, and that all orders made by the Supreme Court in the court below set aside. Various orders for payments in favour of the applicants were also claimed. The grounds extended over 14 pages and covered in more detail the orders sought, claimed the NAB's legal representatives misled various judicial officers and also sought to relitigate the original joinder issue.

On 24 June 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants. The motion sought a stay of all orders made since 3 March 2009 and the setting aside or review or variation of the orders of Giles JA on 15 June 2009 and Campbell JA of 14 July 2008. The motion also sought orders that the property, of which NAB taken possession on 25 May 2010, be returned to the possession of the applicants. The four pages of grounds allege extreme hardship on the Satchithanantham family, and misconduct of NAB's legal representatives, coupled with a lack of faith in the judicial system due to collusion with NAB.

On 6 August 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, with himself and Bramooth Satchithanantham as applicants. The motion sought a stay of all interlocutory and final orders, and possession of the property to be returned to "the occupants and tenants". The stay orders sought included a stay of the hearing of NAB's notice of motion filed 29 June 2010 seeking to restrain Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham from filing and serving or making any oral applications in the Court of Appeal proceedings, without the leave of a judge of the Court.

The notices of motion referred to in paragraphs [83], [84] and [85], filed on 7 June 2010, 24 June 2010 and 6 August 2010 respectively, were heard and dismissed on 13 September 2010 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 243). Handley AJA, with Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing, said at [13] "the proceedings before this Court on these three notices of motion cannot serve any useful purpose and are a clear abuse of process". The Court explained at [13]:

"The judgment of this Court on 2 September 2009 dismissing the appeal from the judgment of McCallum J on 6 February that year finally determined the rights of Mrs Satchi and the Bank and the High Court refused special leave to appeal. This means that the merits of this Court's judgment of 2 September can no longer be examined or re-examined in any court anywhere. The judgment for possession has now been enforced. The merits or otherwise of the many interlocutory orders made in the Common Law Division and in this Court since 2006 are now only of historical interest, if that. The proposed re-examination of the merits of those orders cannot affect the rights of the parties as finally determined by this Court on 2 September 2009."

The hearing of NAB's notice of motion filed 29 June 2010 occurred on 13 September 2010. Judgment was delivered on 28 September 2010. When orders were made restraining Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham from filing any notices of motion in the Court of Appeal proceedings (National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2010] NSWCA 244). Handley AJA, with whom Macfarlan JA agreed, said at [23] and [27]-[29]:

"23. The respondents were entitled to challenge the final judgment of McCallum J, by an appeal to this Court, and were entitled to challenge the decision of this Court by an application to the High Court for special leave. When the High Court refused special leave on 23 April 2010 the respondents had exhausted all possible avenues for legal challenge to the substantive judgment in favour of the Bank for possession of the property and mortgage debt.

...

27. Since the High Court refused special leave on 23 April 2010, the respondents have made five unsuccessful applications to the Common Law Division and four unsuccessful applications to this Court.

28. In my judgment the nine unsuccessful applications made by the respondent since 23 April this year were vexatious and abuses of the process of the Court.

29. The history I have outlined established that the respondents have frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in this Court and in the Common Law Division".

Sackville AJA agreed with the orders, although provided separate reasons, saying at [38]

"there can be no doubt that the respondents have abused the process of the Court by filing repeated unmeritorious motions in the Court of Appeal proceedings after the Court made final orders on 2 September 2009". His Honour expressed some concern about the narrow scope of the orders sought, and that "[w]ider orders might well have been sought by the bank pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008".

I respectfully agree with these conclusions, and the terms in which the Judges of the Court of Appeal have expressed themselves.

On 25 May 2010, Mrs Satchithanantham made an oral application to Barr J for a stay of the execution of the writ of possession. The application was dismissed with costs, due to insufficient evidence to support a stay. Furthermore, Barr J questioned the authenticity of the documents sought to be used in support of the application.

On 26 May 2010, Mr Satchithanantham signed a notice of motion naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants. The respondents were NAB and a partner of Dibbs Abbott Stillman, Emma Hodgman. The orders sought included a stay of the writ of possession and a stay of the eviction of the applicants and tenants of the property. Orders were also sought to file and serve an amended statement of claim in the principal proceedings, and a repetition of the original joinder application. Mr Satchithanantham also sought to rely on the Deed of Family Trust, which had been conceded by Mr Satchithanantham to Sully J had not come to the notice of NAB (see [62] above). Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both in Court. The motion was dismissed with costs by Barr J.

On 25 September 2010, Mr Satchithanantham brought a notice of motion before the Supreme Court. The notice of motion was signed only by Mr Satchithanantham, but named applicants included all three Satchithananthams in addition to Satchi & Australia Pty Ltd, Satchi & Satchi Australia, Singapore Stylmart Sydney and Stylmart Satchi Australia. The orders sought, ex parte, that the auction sale of the Westmead property scheduled at 2pm that day be stayed and be further prohibited on the basis that an arrangement for sale for $1,200,000 was in place. It appears the application was heard by Hall J and a stay was not granted.

On 27 September 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants. NAB was the respondent, with Emma Hodgman, Jane Pike, who were solicitors acting for NAB, and Nicolette Bearup, a barrister who had appeared for NAB, named as proposed respondents. The orders sought to set aside or review the orders made on 13 September 2010, and also to set aside the orders in the principal proceedings made on 3 March 2009. The orders also sought a stay of the sale of the Westmead property which had happened two days earlier, and a declaration that the auction sale was an abuse of the Real Property Act 1900.

The grounds asserted a denial of natural justice in earlier proceedings, and the "criminal nature" of the property's auction on 25 September 2010, due to NAB, the real estate agent and auctioneer engaging in "criminal activities and conduct".

Registrar Riznyczok ordered that the motion be struck out with costs on 18 October 2010. In doing so, the Registrar noted the orders made on 28 September 2010 and stated that the motion was clearly an abuse of process.

On 10 November 2010, on an application by Mr Satchithanantham to have the motion re-listed, the 25 September 2010 notice of motion was relisted before James J. Contemporaneous notes of the legal representative for NAB indicate James J was not satisfied that Hall J had given Mr Satchithanantham leave to file the notice of motion as required pursuant to the orders made by James J on 12 December 2007 and was not satisfied that he should do so. I accept these notes as an accurate record of what occurred.

On 23 December 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion naming all three members of his family as applicants. The six respondents included NAB, Emma Hodgman, Local Court at Parramatta and the Sheriff at Parramatta, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta, King Mortgages Pty Ltd and the purchasers of the property. The orders sought to extend and reinstate caveats, stay orders associated with the sale of the property and the proceedings generally, and disputed the amount owing under the mortgage and that NAB's mortgage over the property be set aside.

The eight pages of grounds include allegations of false and misleading representations and evidence by NAB's legal representatives to the Courts, "deliberately blocked" evidence, and that the NAB failed to establish in Court, since the judgment in the principal proceedings, the correct amount owing under the mortgage.

On 4 January 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed an amended notice of motion additionally naming the Registrar-General of the Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) as the fifth respondent. The additional grounds alleged the LPMA had been acting against their own rules and procedures by granting "favours and wrongful powers" to the mortgagee.

The notice of motion was dismissed by Registrar Bradford on 21 February 2011, substantially because Mr Satchithanantham was not a party to the proceedings and, the motions had been filed without leave of a Judge of the Court, in contravention of the orders made by James J on 12 December 2007.

On 22 February 2011, Mr Satchithanantham sought to re-agitate the notice of motion dismissed by Registrar Bradford on the day before. In an ex tempore judgment, McCallum J dismissed the motion on the basis that the application was in contravention of the orders of James J of 12 December 2007.

On 4 April 2011, following upon a Notice of Appeal filed on 9 February 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. The six named applicants included the three Satchithananthams, Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd, Satchi & Satchi Australia and Singapore Stylemart Sydney. The defendants were the Local Court and Sheriff at Parramatta, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta, and NAB.

The application sought an appeal "as of right" against the decisions of 10 November 2010, 25 September 2010 and 22 February 2011. The appeal grounds alleged the mortgage was invalid and unenforceable, and that the decisions of McCallum J, James J and Hall J contained errors of law and fact. The orders sought possession of the property returned to the appellants, the mortgage to be set aside, all orders set aside and claims for payments from the respondents ranging up to $10 million.

In dismissing the amended notice of appeal on 18 April 2011, Handley AJA said:

"You don't have an appeal as of right from the orders of Justice James and Justice Hall and you can't appeal in advance of an order that has not yet been made. I can't amend this notice of appeal to pick up Justice McCallum's decision and, in any event, you need leave to appeal from her decision. I am starting to waste time now ... Parliament has said you need leave to appeal. I can't change the rules made by Parliament, and all these proceedings are incompetent."

On 2 May 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal, naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants, in addition to Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd, Satchi & Satchi Australia, Singapore Stylemart Sydney and Stylemart Satchi Australia. The three respondents were the Local Court & Sheriff at Parramatta, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta and NAB. In addition, two proposed respondents were named as the Registrar-General, Land and Property Management Authority and Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia (ITSA) who Mr Satchithanantham sought leave to add as respondents.

The notice of motion sought orders to review, vary or set aside the decision of Handley AJA on 18 April 2011 due to alleged "errors of law", have the amended Notice of Appeal filed on 4 April 2011 be heard, or in the alternative make the orders sought in the amended Notice of Motion dated 18 February 2011 dismissed by McCallum J on 22 February 2011. The notice of motion indicated that the applicants

"rely on all of the documents, transcripts, judgments and orders made in the respective courts involved in the court below from 25.9.10, as to appeal from, and on going, until further determination of this appeal".

The Registrar made directions for the matter to be reviewed by the full bench of the Court of Appeal. The application was dismissed with costs by the Court of Appeal on 2 August 2011. Hodgson JA (Whealy JA and Sackville AJA agreeing) said that Handley AJA was "clearly" not in error dismissing the appeal as incompetent, because interlocutory judgments require leave to appeal (Satchithanantham v Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported).

In between the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, and the hearing of the application by the Court of Appeal on 2 August 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a Notice of Motion challenging the decision of the Registrar, in a way which is quite unclear, and seeking directions from the Court of Appeal.

On 25 July 2011, Hodgson JA dismissed the Notice of Motion. He said:

"2 The notice of motion is expressed in terms which are difficult to understand; and I have permitted Mr Satchithanantham to tell me what is the substance of what he is attempting to achieve by this notice of motion. From his explanation, it seems clear that this is an attempt being made, following earlier similar attempts, to reopen questions that have been finally determined by decisions of this Court, notably a Court of Appeal decision that was made on 2 September ([2009] NSWCA 268), in respect of which the High Court refused special leave to appeal on 23 April 2010.

...

6 The situation before me is that Mr Satchithanantham is before me and is still a bankrupt. He has no leave to appear for any of the other applicants, and I do not grant that leave. Having regard to the history of the matter that I have outlined, and having regard to the content of the notice of motion which I have read, it is in my view clear that this is an abuse of process; and on that basis, as well as on the basis of the matters referred to by the registrar, in my opinion this notice of motion should be dismissed."

I am satisfied that each of the applications referred to in this group from [79] to [108] were vexatious proceedings within the meaning of that term in the VP Act. That is because none of the proceedings had a reasonable ground to support the orders being sought. As was clear from the judgment of McClellan CJ at CL of 29 April 2010: see [80], all available legal remedies had been exhausted. Yet, the applications kept being filed, and when unsuccessful, made the subject of an appeal and applications for review.

The number of these applications, the absence of any proper basis for them, and the repetitious nature of them, including the short periods, of only a few days, between the filing of them, lead me to conclude that those proceedings were being conducted in a way so as to harass the NAB, and other respondents, to cause delay to the NAB, in enforcing its orders, and to cause detriment by way of unrecoverable costs and expense to the NAB and other respondents.

Since, as it appears from the judgment of Hodgson JA at [109], Mr Satchithanantham was then a bankrupt, and he was proceeding without the leave of his trustee in bankruptcy, the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process, when taken in addition to the other features to which I have referred, is inevitable.

Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Proceedings

Twelve vexatious proceedings were brought in the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal.

On 25 May 2010, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed an application in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The application filed after the decision of McCallum J in the principal proceedings, sought orders to discharge the mortgage over the property, stay the eviction order and continue the alleged lease of the property. In other words, orders were claimed which sought collaterally in a tribunal which had no jurisdiction, to attack the judgment of McCallum J.

The proceedings were dismissed on 25 October 2010. In doing so, Senior Member G J Durie stated "the basis of the application is very difficult to decipher", concluded Mr Satchithanantham had no standing to bring the application and was satisfied

"the application made by Ms Satchithanantham is a matter already determined by the decision of McCallum J. Even without the provisions of the Tribunal Act s.22 (7), the matters are res judicata between the parties and cannot now be brought before the Tribunal. The present application is vexatious and lacking in substance; further, it is an abuse of process" (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCTTT 494).

Mr Satchithanantham filed a further application on 26 November 2010, in his and Mrs Satchithanantham's name, seeking a rehearing of their original application in the CTTT. The application was refused on or about 30 November 2010, by the CTTT. Although no court records were tendered about this application, I accept the evidence of Ms Pike in her affidavit of 6 July 2011, that this is what happened.

On 14 December 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed an application in his and Mrs Satchithanantham's name, seeking a further rehearing of his original application. On 17 December 2010, the application was refused as misconceived and could not succeed "for a number of reasons". The reasons included that the amount of money claimed exceeded the $30,000 cap in the CTTT for a party to be eligible for a rehearing, rehearing provisions were not the correct avenue to challenge a decision on the basis of an alleged error of law, and

"[w]here a rehearing application has been refused, the Chairperson can consider a further rehearing application in very limited circumstances ... [and the] applicant has not pointed to any significant new evidence that has arisen since the first rehearing application was refused."

On 14 January 2011, Mrs Satchithanantham filed a summons commencing an appeal in the District Court of NSW. The named defendants included NAB, the chairperson of the CTTT and the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT. On 14 March 2011, Mrs Satchithanantham was ordered by the judicial registrar to file and serve a notice of motion within 7 days for leave to file an amended summons, which Mr Satchithanantham sought to file. On that same day, Mr Satchithanantham filed, without leave, the amended summons adding Mr Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as plaintiffs. The amended summons also annexed a letter signed by Mrs Satchithanantham purporting to give Mr Satchithanantham authority to sign on her behalf in the legal proceedings and represent her.

The amended summons sought to appeal the CTTT decisions of 25 October 2010, 30 November 2010 and 17 December 2010. The orders also sought possession of the property and damages. The grounds relied upon alleged "gross misconduct, ignorance [and] collusion" of all respondents. On 8 April 2011, Judicial Registrar Smith noted the lack of leave to file the amended summons, and removed Mr Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. The proceedings were then dismissed on the basis of r 12.11 and r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

On 6 May 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the District Court, naming himself, Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as plaintiffs. The defendants again were named as NAB, the chairperson of the CTT and the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT. The notice of motion sought to set aside the orders made of Judicial Registrar Smith of 8 April 2011. The grounds included allegations of duress and ill treatment towards the applicants on 8 April 2011, and misleading conduct on the part of the respondents. On 18 July 2011, Truss J dismissed the application.

Whilst the proceedings in the District Court were being dealt with, and before they were finalised, on 14 January 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a summons commencing an appeal from the decisions of the CTTT in the Supreme Court. He named himself, Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi as plaintiffs, and NAB, the chairperson of the CTTT and the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT as defendants. He sought review and setting aside of the orders of 25 October 2010, 30 November 2010 and 17 December 2010. The grounds canvassed allegations of procedural unfairness, denial of natural justice and misconduct by NAB.

On 25 March 2011, in the appeal proceedings from the CTTT, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Supreme Court, naming himself, Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi as plaintiffs. The defendants were NAB, the chairperson of the CTT, the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT, ITSA, Solutions in Property Pty Ltd and the Registrar-General of the Land and Property Management Authority as respondents. The notice of motion sought orders extending the operation of the caveat registered number AF886700, reinstatement of various caveats, possession of the property, removal of the mortgages over the property, orders restraining the "alleged power of sale", and that NAB is "restrained from issuing lapsing notices to the public".

Brereton J heard and dismissed that part of the motion seeking an extension of a caveat on 28 March 2011 (Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWSC 402). Evidence established that the caveat had already lapsed. However, Brereton J heard arguments on the operation of the caveat. Mr Satchithanantham claimed that

"his trustee in bankruptcy was not entitled to transfer his former interest in the property to his wife, and that the mortgage to the National Australia Bank is invalidated by the circumstance that he was a joint owner of the property".

In refusing the application with costs, Brereton J noted that applicant was not a registered proprietor of the land when the mortgage was given to the bank and there

"was nothing to indicate that the bank was in any way on notice of any relevant claim by him to an interest. Indeed, there was a strong inference to the contrary, since at the time he was an undischarged bankrupt and it was for that very reason that the property was transferred to his wife".

Mr Satchithanantham then sought to persuade the Court to make the orders sought in the notice of motion filed 25 March 2011 on three further occasions.

On 16 May 2011, the notice of motion was dismissed by Bergin CJ as there

"was no serious issue to be tried in respect of that matter [and] even if that were wrong ... the balance of convenience favoured the refusal of the relief".

On 29 June 2011, Mr Satchithanantham faxed an application seeking an urgent listing before Bergin CL in Eq, of the same application put on behalf of Mrs Satchithanantham. The application was dismissed, stating that

"[t]hese are matters with which I dealt on 16 May 2011"

or were otherwise unsustainable.

On 31 October 2011, Nicholas J dismissed an application by Mr Satchithanantham seeking to ventilate most of the claims of relief sought in the notice of motion filed on 25 March 2011. His Honour stated

"I am satisfied that [Bergin CJ in Eq]'s ruling effectively dismissed the claims in the notice of motion and that there is nothing further to be done in first instance in relation to it".

On 16 November 2011, the original summons commencing the proceedings came before Sackar J. Mr Satchithanantham appeared and after an exchange with Sackar J, indicated he no longer wished to press the original summons and it was dismissed. Mr Satchithanantham then sought leave to rely upon amended summons dated 14 November 2011 and a notice of motion of the same date. In refusing leave to file and proceed upon the amended summons, his Honour said:

"The proposed amended summons commencing the appeal seems to me to seek yet again to re-agitate a whole series of factual issues concerning the conduct of the National Australia Bank not only in respect of the relevant loan but in respect of alleged misconduct of its legal representatives at various points in time in connection with the process proposed. The process does appear to me to involve a complete re-agitation of many, if not all, of the issues which have been before this Court and various Judges of this Court, on numerous previous occasions. I do not consider it appropriate to grant leave to proceed with the amended summons. I consider do to so would amount to an abuse of process. Equally I also consider it would amount to an abuse of process to permit the joinder of the other parties referred to in the documents."

District Court proceedings were brought by Multilink Investments Pty Ltd against Bylander International Consortium (Aust) Pty Ltd, to recover an advance made to that company, and also against Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham pursuant to guarantees in respect of that advance. Judgment against all three defendants was obtained in December 2000.

All three defendants appealed. Mrs Satchithanantham's appeal was successful, and on 14 March 2001, judgment against her was set aside (Bylander v Multilink [2001] NSWCA 53).

Mr Satchithanantham's appeal was dismissed on 11 February 2002. Multilink issued a bankruptcy notice against Mr Satchithanantham regarding the District Court judgment, and subsequent to a creditor's petition, Registrar Hedge made a sequestration order on 22 February 2002.

On the material available to me, I could not be satisfied that these proceedings constituted vexatious proceedings within the meaning of s 6 of the VP Act.

Federal Magistrate Court proceedings SZ63/01

On 7 May 2002, Driver FM heard an application by Mr Satchithanantham in the Federal Magistrate's Court seeking review of the sequestration order made against him. Mr Satchithanantham alleged that the bankruptcy notice was not properly served and that the Registrar had

"erred in not adjourning the hearing of the creditor's petition pending the outcome of an application for special leave filed by Mr Satchi on 23 April 2002 in the High Court against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales confirming a decision of the District Court of New South Wales on which the bankruptcy notice was based."

In dismissing the application, Driver FM found "incontrovertible proof" of service, and that the special leave application "does not have reasonable prospects of success and is almost certainly doomed to fail".

I agree with Driver FM's conclusions about the special leave application. However, I am not prepared to find that this was a vexatious proceeding.

Federal Court proceedings - N492/2002

On or about 28 May 2001, Mr Satchithanantham filed an appeal from Driver FM's decision.

On 27 June 2002, Jacobsen J heard an application by Mr Satchithanantham in the proceedings for a stay of the sequestration order. Finding "strong grounds for refusing to grant a stay of the sequestration order" the application was dismissed with costs (Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 914).

After a proposed amended ground of appeal was removed (Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 974), the appeal was heard by Conti J on 18 October 2002 (Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1277). Conti J dismissed the appeal with costs, saying

"although I have not specifically addressed even most of the very numerous purported grounds of appeal, I have nevertheless read and given consideration to each of them, and have been unable to detect the existence of any potential or conceivable merit of viability in relation thereto."

Reflection on the litigation

This review of the litigation is conveniently summarised in a Schedule attached to this judgment. The Schedule contains a number of abbreviations of the names of Mr and Mr Satchithanantham. These abbreviations have been necessary in order to accommodate the formatting in the information. No disrespect is intended.

Although not all of the litigation referred to in this judgment was addressed by the evidence adduced by the NAB, Mr Satchithanantham, in the course of the hearing of NAB's application, tendered all files of litigation in which he was involved. Although he was not in possession of this material, he submitted that the Court should look at all documents which he had filed in proceedings in which he was involved. I have acted upon this submission.

The review of the litigation demonstrates that Mr Satchithanantham has brought proceedings on many, many occasions which were, and have been found, to be an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings have been brought and pursued without any proper or reasonable ground. The proceedings certainly have caused harassment, annoyance and detriment by way of the incurring of costs to the NAB and other parties involved in the litigation.

A simple recital of the proceedings, and a reading of the pleadings and judgments, abundantly demonstrates these conclusions.

Whilst I have listed and reviewed all of the litigation in which Mr Satchithanantham has been involved, I am content to rest the orders which I will make entirely on the content of and the proceedings instituted by Mr Satchithanantham against the NAB in this Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court of Australia together with the proceedings in the bankruptcy jurisdiction.

I am, for the reasons expressed in the course of this judgment, satisfied that both Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham have, in the proceedings referred to in [258], frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia, and that appropriate orders ought to be made which have the effect of preventing Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham behaving in a similar way in the future.

Orders under the VP Act, are in my view necessary, because on a large number of occasions, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham have shown themselves to be quite unable to:

(a) institute proceedings which are properly based;

(b) conduct proceedings by putting submissions which are rational, and relate to a proper legal basis for relief;

(c) pay any heed to the contents of any judgment which calls attention to, or else highlights deficiencies in their proceedings; and

(d) restrain themselves from instituting and conducting proceedings which are an abuse of process.

Having regard to these matters, and the public interest, although not an order lightly made, I am well satisfied this order should be made.

Orders

Pursuant to s 8(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, I order that:

(1) Mr Thambiappah Satchithanantham be, and hereby is, prohibited from instituting proceedings whether by way of final relief, or by interlocutory motion, or application in New South Wales, whether in his own name, or in the name of any other individual, or corporation, or legal entity.

(2) Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham be, and hereby is, prohibited from instituting proceedings whether by way of final relief, or by interlocutory motion, or application in New South Wales, whether in her own name or in the name of any other individual, or corporation or legal entity.

(3) Order both Mr Satchithanantham and Mrs Satchithanantham pay the National Australia Bank's costs of the proceedings.

**********

SCHEDULE TO JUDGMENT
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK v SATCHITHANANTHAM [2012] NSWSC 959

Principal proceedings - McCallum J

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

10.11.05

-

-

-

NAB sought: Possession of property which Mrs Satchi had mortgaged to NAB.

-

08.09.06

NOM

Sought: NAB's SOC be dismissed.

13.09.06

Decision

SC

Sully J

Heard 08.09.06 NOM.

Dismissed

06.02.09 & 03.03.09

Decision - NAB v Satchi [2009] NSWSC 21

SC

McCallum J

Heard 10.11.05 NOM.

NAB gained possession / Principal amount reduced (partially successful)

12.02.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of final orders.

-

03.04.09

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal orders of McCallum J (03.03.09).

-

07.04.09

Decision

SC

McCallum J

Heard 12.02.09 NOM.

Dismissed

07.04.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of orders and appeal proceedings be listed for expedition.

-

18.05.09

Decision

CA

Ipp JA

Heard 07.04.09 NOM.

Stayed final orders until the CA judgment on 01.07.09

02.09.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] NSWCA 268

CA

Giles, Hodgson & Young JA

Heard 03.04.09 NOA.

Dismissed appeal but writ stayed until 01.11.09

30.09.09

App for leave to appeal to HC

-

-

Mrs Satchi applied for special leave to appeal to the HC.

-

23.04.10

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] HCA Trans 101

HC

French CJ & Kiefel J

Heard 30.09.09 application.

Dismissed

Joinder applications

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

02.12.05

NOM

-

-

Sought: Mr Satchi and son be joined as parties.

-

11.09.06

Decision - NAB v Satchi (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported)

SC

Sully J

Heard 02.12.05 NOM.

Dismissed

05.01.07

Summons

-

-

Sought: leave to appeal order of Sully (11.09.06).

-

23.05.07

Decision - Satchi v NAB (NSWCA, 23 May 2007, unreported)

CA

Beazley & Tobias JJA

Heard 05.01.07 NOM.

Dismissed

15.06.07

NOM

-

-

Sought: joinder.

-

25.06.07

Decision

SC

Reg Bradford

Heard 15.06.07 NOM.

Dismissed

26.07.07

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside orders of Reg Bradford and joinder.

-

24.09.07

Decision

SC

Malpass AsJ

Heard 26.07.07 NOM.

Dismissed

19.10.07

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside orders of Malpass AsJ and costs order by Reg Bradford and joinder.

-

26.11.07

NOM

-

-

NAN sought: restrain Mr and Mrs Satchi.

-

12.12.07

Decision

SC

James J

Heard 19.10.07 NOM.

Dismissed and restrained

12.12.07

Summons

-

-

Sought: leave to appeal from orders of James J.

-

08.04.08

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of hearing and various other orders.

-

14.04.08

Decision

SC

Mason P

Heard 08.04.08 NOM.

Dismissed

14.05.08

Decision - Satchi v NAB (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported)

CA

Mason P and Handley AJA

Heard 12.12.07 summons.

Dismissed

29.05.08

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside orders of James J, stay bankruptcy notice and joinder.

-

16.06.08

Decision

SC

Reg Schell

Heard 29.05.08 NOM

Dismissed

25.06.08

NOM

-

-

Sought: review orders of the CA on 14.05.08.

-

14.07.08

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2008] NSWCA 168

CA

Campbell JA

Heard 25.06.08 NOM.

Dismissed

N/A

App for leave to appeal

-

-

Sought: leave to appeal from the orders of the CA on 14.05.08.

-

10.12.08

Satchi v NAB [2008] HCASL 586

HC

Hayne and Crennan JJ

Heard app for leave to appeal.

Dismissed

Further attempts by Mr S and/or Mrs S to stay the final order of McCallum J of 03.03.09

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

14.05.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay final orders pending the CA hearing.

-

01.07.09

Decision

CA

Hodgson, Giles and Young JJA

Heard 14.05.09 NOM
(Mrs Satchi elected not to move on 14.05.09 NOM).

Dismissed

25.05.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: vary/discharge orders of Ipp JA on 18.05.09

-

15.06.09

Decision

CA

Giles JA

Heard 25.05.09 NOM

Dismissed

11.09.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay the orders made by CA on 02.09.09, general stay grounds and relist Mrs Satchi's 14.05.09 NOM.

-

27.10.09

Decision

CA

Young JA

Heard 11.09.09 NOM.

Dismissed but stay until 17.11.09

06.11.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: review orders of Young JA on 27.10.09 and a stay pending application for special leave to the HC.

-

04.12.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] NSWCA 395

CA

Allsop P, Basten JA & Handley AJA

Heard 06.11.09 NOM.

Dismissed

18.03.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: prevent execution of writ of possession and dispute amount owed to NAB.

-

23.03.10

Decision

SC

Hoeben J

Heard 18.03.10 NOM.

Dismissed

Applications after the dismissal of the HC special leave application (23.04.10)

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

27.04.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: prevent execution of writ of possession and dispute amount owed to NAB.

-

29.04.10

Decision

SC

McClellan CJ

Heard 27.04.10 NOM.

Dismissed

30.04.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: prevent execution of writ of possession and dispute amount owed to NAB.

-

19.05.10

Decision

SC

Hulme J

Heard 30.04.10 NOM.

Dismissed

19.05.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of the writ of possession and orders of McCallum J (03.03.09) be set aside.

-

24.05.10

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWCA 118

CA

Hodgson JA

Heard 19.05.10 NOM.

Dismissed

25.05.10

Decision

SC

Barr J

Heard oral app for stay of the writ of possession.

Dismissed

26.05.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of writ of possession and eviction.

-

26.05.10

Decision

SC

Barr J

Heard 26.05.10 NOM.

Dismissed

07.06.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of orders of McCallum J (03.03.09), review orders of Hodgson JA (24.05.10), all orders be set aside.

-

24.06.10

NOM

CA

Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA

Sought: stay of all orders made since 03.03.09, set aside or review orders of Giles JA (15.06.10) and Campbell JA (14.07.08) and property be returned.

-

29.06.10

-

-

-

NAB sought: restrain Mr and Mrs Satchi from filing any NOM in the CA proceedings without leave of the Ct.

-

06.08.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of interlocutory and final orders, property be returned and stay of NAB's NOM seeking to restrain Mr Satchi and Mrs Satchi.

-

13.09.10

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWCA 243

CA

Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA

Heard 07.06.10, 24.06.10 and 06.08.10 NOM.

Dismissed

25.09.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: Auction (today) be stayed.

-

25.09.10

Decision

SC

Hall J

Heard 25.09.10 NOM.

Dismissed

28.09.10

Decision - NAB v Satchi [2010] NSWCA 244

CA

Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA

Heard NAB's 29.06.10 NOM.

NAB successful

27.09.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside review orders of Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA (13.09.10).

-

18.10.10

Decision

SC

Reg Riznyczok

Heard 27.09.10 NOM.

Dismissed

03.11.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: re-list 25.09.10 NOM.

-

10.11.10

Decision

SC

James J

Heard 03.11.10 NOM.

Dismissed

23.12.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: extend and reinstate caveats, stay orders associated with the sale and the proceedings generally, disputed amount owing and NAB's mortgage be set aside.

-

04.01.11

Amended NOM

-

-

Additional grounds against LPMA.

-

09.02.11

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal against final decision on 25.09.10 and 10.11.10.

-

21.02.11

Decision

SC

Reg Bradford

Heard 04.01.11 amended NOM.

Dismissed

22.02.11

Decision

SC

McCallum J

Mrs Satchi sought to re-agitate 04.01.11 amended NOM.

Dismissed

04.04.11

Amended NOA

-

-

Sought: amend 09.02.11 NOA. Sought possession, mortgage be set aside, all orders set aside and claims for payments ranging up to $10M.

-

18.04.11

Decision

CA

Handley AJA

Heard 04.04.11 amended NOA

Dismissed

02.05.11

NOM

-

-

Sought: review/vary/set aside Handley AJA's 18.04.11 decision

-

02.08.11

Decision - Satchi v Sheriff of NSW (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported)

CA

Hodgson JA, Whealy JA and Sackville AJA

Heard 02.05.11 NOM

Dismissed

CTTT Proceedings (Twelve)

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

25.05.10

App

-

-

Sought: discharge mortgage, stay eviction order and continue lease

-

25.10.10

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWCTTT 494

CTTT

Snr Mbr Durie

Heard 25.05.10 app

Dismissed

26.11.10

App

-

-

Sought: rehear original application

-

30.11.10

Decision

CTTT

-

Heard 26.11.10 app

Dismissed

14.12.10

App

-

-

Sought: further rehearing of original application

-

17.12.10

Decision

CTTT

-

Heard 14.12.10 app

Dismissed

14.01.11

Summons

-

-

Sought: appeal to DC, seeking possession of property and damages.

-

14.03.11

Decision

DC

Reg Smith

Heard 14.01.11 summons. Incorrect summons, required amended summons

14.03.11

Amended summons

-

-

Amended 14.01.11 summons. Sought to appeal 25.10.10, 30.11.10 and 17.12.10 decisions.

-

08.04.11

Decision

DC

Reg Smith

Heard 14.03.11 amended summons.

Dismissed

06.05.11

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside orders of Reg Smith (08.04.11).

-

18.07.11

Decision

DC

Truss J

Heard 06.05.11 NOM

Dismissed

14.01.11

Summons

-

-

Sought: commence appeal to set aside orders of 25.10.10, 30.11.10 and 17.12.10.

-

25.03.11

NOM

-

-

Sought: extension of caveats, reinstate various caveats, possession of property, removal of mortgages, restrain power of sale and restraint of NAB.

-

28.03.11

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2011] NSWSC 402

SC

Brereton J

Heard 25.03.11 NOM. Considered the caveat only.

Dismissed

16.05.11

Decision

SC

Bergin CJ

Heard 25.03.11 NOM.

Dismissed

29.06.11

Decision

SC

Bergin CJ

Heard 25.03.11 NOM.

Dismissed

31.10.11

Decision

SC

Nicholas J

Heard 25.03.11 NOM.

Dismissed

16.11.11

Decision

SC

Sackar J

Heard 14.01.11 summons. Sought leave to file amended summons and NOM.

Dismissed

14.12.11

Notice of intention to appeal

-

-

Sought: appeal decisions of Bergin CJ, Sackar and Brereton JJ.

-

Other proceedings - Satchi & Thambiappah v NAB 2007/5597

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

19.11.07

SOC

-

-

Mr Satchi commenced proceedings against Gunaretnam.

-

04.02.08

-

-

-

NAB sought: proceedings be dismissed or 19.11.07 SOC be struck out.

-

16.04.08

Decision

SC

Macready AsJ

Heard 19.11.07 SOC and 04.02.08 NOM: dismissed the proceedings and struck out the SOC.

Dismissed

N/A

NOM

-

-

Sought: appeal Macready AsJ's orders (16.04.08) and summary judgment.

-

26.09.08

Decision - Satchi v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097

SC

White J

Heard above NOM.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - Satchi v NAB & Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers 2007/6031

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

14.12.07

SOC

-

-

Sought: summary judgment against NAB and Dibbs Abott Stillman Lawyers for $1.4M, set aside 3 mortgages.

-

11.01.08

-

-

-

NAB sought: strike out 14.12.07 SOC and summary dismissal.

-

16.04.08

Decision

SC

Macready AsJ

Heard 14.12.07 SOC and 16.04.08 NOM, dismissed the proceedings and struck out the SOC.

Dismissed

13.05.08

NOM

-

-

Sought: appeal orders of Macready AsJ (16.04.08), have orders set aside, summary judgment and leave to file amended SOC.

-

26.09.08

Decision - Satchi v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097

SC

White J

Heard 13.05.08 NOM. Heard at the same time as other appeal above.

Dismissed

23.09.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: prevent sale of Westmead property to take place on 25.09.10.

-

24.09.10

Decision

SC

Rein J

Heard 24.09.10 NOM.

Dismissed

15.11.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: extend two caveats (due to lapse that day) and restrain completion of sale of property.

-

15.11.10

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWSC 1338

SC

White J

Heard 15.11.10 NOM.

Dismissed

14.02.11

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal decision of Rein J (24.09.10) and White J (15.11.10) - judgments be set aside, mortgages be set aside, contract of sale be set aside and $7.5M for loss and damages.

-

17.05.11

Amended NOA

-

-

Sought: amend 14.02.11 appeal. Increased figure to $10M.

-

18.05.11

Decision

CA

Reg Rizynczok

Heard the amended NOA.

Discontinued the proceedings

15.06.11

NOM

-

-

Sought: leave to appeal from decision of Reg Rizynczok - investigate Reg's conduct and Reg/SC pay $15M for perverting the course of justice.

-

25.07.11

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2011] NSWCA 213

CA

Hodgson JA

Heard 15.06.11 NOM.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - Bankruptcy

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

15.04.08

-

-

-

NAB served a bankruptcy notice pursuant to costs order by James J (12.12.07).

-

04.06.08

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside bankruptcy notice.

-

01.07.08

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2008] FMCA 940

FMCA

Smith FM

Heard 04.06.08 NOM.

Dismissed

21.07.08

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal order of Smith FM (01.07.08).

15.09.08

Amended NOA

-

-

Amend 21.07.08 NOA. Added more grounds of appeal.

-

27.02.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FCA 198

FCA

Edmonds J

Heard 15.09.08 amended NOA.

Dismissed

N/A

Special leave to appeal to HCA

-

-

Sought: appeal various orders including Edmonds J (27.02.09).

-

23.09.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] HCASL 181

HCA

Heydon & Bell JJ

Heard above leave to appeal.

Refused

15.08.08

-

-

-

NAB served a creditors petition based on non-compliance with bankruptcy notice.

-

11.03.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FMCA 229

FMCA

Smith FM

Heard above creditors petition. Sequestration order made.

Sequestration order

N/A

Appeal

-

-

Appeal sequestration order.

-

11.05.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FCA 501

FCA

Stone J

Heard above appeal.

Dismissed

N/A

Special leave to appeal

-

-

Sought: appeal order of Stone J (11.03.09) and the costs orders.

-

01.10.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] HCASL 201

HCA

Gummow & Kiefel JJ

Heard the above appeal.

Dismissed

03.04.09

App

-

-

Sought: set aside or annul the sequestration order and damages.

-

16.06.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FMCA 562

FCA

Driver FM

Heard 03.04.09 app.

Dismissed

07.07.09

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal orders of Driver FM (16.06.09)

-

07.07.09

Decision

FCA

Dep Reg Hannigan

Rejected 07.07.09 NOA.

Dismissed

30.07.09

App

-

-

Sought: review decision of Dep Reg Hannigan (07.07.09).

-

14.10.09

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FCA 1171

FCA

Foster J

Heard 30.07.09 app for review.

Dismissed

04.11.09

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal decision of Foster J (14.10.09)

-

21.05.10

Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] FCAFC 47

FCAFC

Cowdroy & Buchanan JJ

Heard 04.11.09 appeal.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

08.02.05

-

-

-

Zeaiter commenced proceedings in Bankstown LC for unpaid rent and outgoings.

-

Sept 05

-

-

-

Proceedings transferred to ADT.

-

10.06.08

Decision - Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchi [2008] NSWADT 165

ADT

Ordered Satchi's to pay $70k.

-

02.04.09

Decision - Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchi [2009] NSWADT 70

ADT

Ordered Satchi's to pay 80% of balance of Zeaiter's costs.

-

1. Zeaiter - ADT proceedings 075034

24.02.07

App

-

-

Sought: summary judgment for cross-claim and damages.

-

24.05.07

Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWADT, 24 May 2007, unreported)

ADT

Higgins JM

Heard 24.02.07 app.

Dismissed

2. Zeaiter - ADT appeal panel proceedings 079043

27.07.07

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal orders of Higgins JM (24.05.07).

-

18.12.07

Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2007] NSWADTAP 74

ADT

Appeal panel

Heard 27.07.07 appeal.

Dismissed

3. Zeaiter - ADT proceedings 075031

22.02.07

App

-

-

Sought: urgent relief against removal from the premises.

-

18.12.07

Decision

ADT

Chesterman ADCJ

Heard 22.02.07 summons. Struck out summons.

Struck out

4. Zeaiter - ADT appeal panel proceedings 089025

20.03.08

Appeal

-

-

Sought: set aside orders of Chesterman ADCJ (18.12.07).

-

24.12.08

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd and Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 165

ADTAP

Appeal panel

Heard 20.03.08 appeal.

Dismissed

5. Zeaiter - Appeal panel proceedings 089048 and 099022

N/A

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal 10.06.08 and 02.04.09 decisions.

-

25.09.09

Decision - Satchi & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2009] NSWADTAP 53

ADTAP

Appeal panel

Heard above appeal.

Dismissed

6. Zeaiter - ADT appeal panel proceedings 109016

10.03.10

NOA

-

-

Sought: appeal 22.12.09 interlocutory decision.

-

20.04.10

Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADTAP 30

ADTAP

Appeal panel

Heard the 10.03.10 appeal.

Struck out

7. Zeaiter - ADT proceedings 85133

07.07.08

App

-

-

Sought: relief against removal from the premises.

-

21.08.08

App

-

-

Sought: interim relief.

-

02.07.09

App

-

-

Sought: interim relief.

-

02.07.09

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] NSWADT 237

ADT

Fox JM

Heard above interim relief applications.

Dismissed

05.03.10

Amended App

-

-

Amended 07.07.08 app - changed parties.

-

23.09.10

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 316

ADT

Molloy JM

Heard 05.03.10 amended app.

Dismissed

8. Zeaiter - SC proceedings 07/30145

N/A

Summons

-

-

Sought: permission to re-enter the retail shop premises.

-

09.05.08

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 411

SC

Hoeben J

Heard above summons. Summons a nullity.

No order

9. Zeaiter - SC proceedings 2008/289772 (formerly 2008/30004)

07.01.08

Summons

-

-

Sought: appeal 18.12.07 decision.

-

28.04.08

NOM

-

-

Sought: have the hearing date vacated and commence proceedings in the CA.

Dismissed

09.05.08

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 411

SC

Hoeben J

Heard 28.04.08 NOM. Dismissed so much as related to ADT appeal only.

Dismissed

30.07.08

Decision

SC

Hoeben J

Heard outstanding parts of the 28.04.08 NOM.

Dismissed

10. Zeaiter - SC proceedings 08/289772 (formerly 08/30004)

20.04.10

NOM

-

-

See 21.05.10 amended NOM.

-

21.05.10

Amended NOM

-

-

Sought: summary judgment on outstanding claims, possession of retail premises be restored, interruption of eviction from Westmead property and damages of $7M.

-

25.06.10

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 715

SC

Garling J

Heard above NOM's.

Dismissed

17.09.10

Oral app

SC

Garling J

Sought: vacate the orders of Garling J (25.06.10).

Dismissed

17.12.10

SOC

-

-

Sought: discharge mortgage, liquidated damages and stay of sequestration order.

-

13.01.11

-

-

-

NAB sought: SOC be struck out as an abuse of process.

-

30.03.11

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWSC, 30 March 2011, unreported)

SC

Fullerton J

Heard NAB's 13.01.11 NOM. Held SOC was an abuse of process. Also restrained the Satchi's.

NAB successful

27.04.11

Notice of intention to appeal

-

-

Sought: appeal decision of Fullerton J (30.03.11).

-

11.05.11

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of 30.03.11 order and default judgment be entered against NAB.

-

25.05.11

Decision

SC

Reg Walton

Heard 11.05.11 NOM.

Dismissed

06.07.11

-

-

-

NAB sought: restrain Mr and Mrs Satchi.

14.07.11

Decision - Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 734

SC

Schmidt J

Heard 06.07.11 NOM. Ordered Mr and Mrs Satchi be restrained from lodging a caveat on the Westmead property.

Restrained

14.07.11

NOM

-

-

Sought: NAB's 06.07.11 NOM be set aside, various orders in the 11.05.11 NOM be dealt with and all orders in proceedings 05/15259 be stayed/set aside.

-

11.08.11

Decision

SC

Fullerton J

Heard 06.07.11 NOM. NOM stand, be retitled as a summons and have a new proceedings number.

-

18.08.11

Decision - Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 892

SC

Harrison AsJ

Dismissed SOC.

Dismissed

09.11.11

App

-

-

Sought: re-listing.

-

09.11.11

Decision

SC

Reg Bradford

Matter referred to Harrison AsJ.

-

09.11.11

Decision

SC

Harrison AsJ

Heard re-listing.

Dismissed

11. Zeaiter - FMC proceedings (SYG882/10)

04.04.10

-

-

-

Mrs Satchi served with bankruptcy notice by Zeaiter.

-

03.06.10

App

-

-

Sought: set aside bankruptcy notice or adjourn the hearing or extend time for compliance until three other litigation proceedings are concluded.

-

03.06.10

Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 393

FMC

Smith FM

Heard above app. Held the app was brought to frustrate the bankruptcy proceedings.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - SC - Sanja Sarma t/as Adidev Enterprises (2006/1143)

Date

Application /
Judgment

Heard by

Heard before

Info

Outcome

02.03.06

-

-

-

LC ordered Satchi pay $20k to Sanjay Sarma.

Sarma successful

03.03.06

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside orders.

-

N/A

Decision

-

-

Heard 03.03.06 NOM (in chambers).

Dismissed

29.03.06

Summons

-

-

Sought: set aside the 02.03.06 orders.

-

15.06.07

Decision

SC

Reg Howe

No appearance by the P's. Struck out the summons.

Dismissed

04.07.06

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside order of Reg Howe (15.06.09).

-

27.06.07

Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd v Sanjay Sarma t/as Adidev Enterprises [2007] NSWSC 642

SC

Malpass AsJ

Heard 04.07.06 NOM and 29.03.06 summons. Held there was a lack of evidence. Both dismissed.

Dismissed

20.07.07

NOM

-

-

Sought: appeal decision of Malpass AsJ.

-

23.10.07

Decision - Satchi & Satchi v Sarma [2007] NSWSC 1184

SC

Bell J

Heard 20.07.07 NOM.

Dismissed

N/A

Notice of intention to appeal

-

-

Sought: appeal to CA.

-

N/A

Decision

SC

Reg Schell

Heard above holding appeal.

Dismissed

N/A

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside decision of Reg Schell.

-

01.05.08

Decision

CA

Mason P

Heard above NOM.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - SC - Steffel (2008/12444)

27.07.06

-

-

-

Steffel obtained judgment against Sharma for $4k.

29.06.07

-

-

-

Steffel sought: garnishee order against Satchi.

-

26.10.07

Decision

LC

Mag Garbett

Heard 29.06.07 NOM. Held in favour of Steffel for $4k.

Steffel successful

24.12.07

Summons seeking appeal

-

-

Sought: set aside orders of 02.03.06 and Steffel pay $154k to Satchi.

-

31.10.08

Satchi v Steffel [2008] NSWSC 1153

SC

Hall J

Heard 24.12.07 summons.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - SC - Jackson Smith Lawyers (2008/285906)

18.07.08

-

-

-

Mrs Satchi registered an incorrectly recorded certificate of determination of costs (showing that costs should be awarded to her) and obtained judgment

28.10.09

-

-

-

Smith sought: have above set aside.

-

26.11.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: Smith's 28.10.09 NOM be dismissed.

-

01.12.09

Decision

SC

Fullerton J

Heard 28.10.09 NOM.

26.11.09 NOM dismissed, 18.07.08 judgment set aside

15.12.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: dismiss orders of Fullerton J (01.12.09).

-

01.03.10

Decision

SC

Reg Bradford

Heard 15.12.09 NOM.

Dismissed

26.03.10

NOM

-

-

Sought: set aside 01.03.10 orders.

-

18.05.11

Decision - Satchi v Jackson Smith Lawyers [2011] NSWSC 412

SC

Harrison AsJ

Heard 26.03.10 NOM.

Dismissed and restrained

Other proceedings - SC - King Mortgages (2004/12756) and Cash King (2004/13736)

N/A

-

-

-

Sought: possession. Mrs Satchi cross-claimed for the mortgages to be set-aside.

-

15.12.06

Decision - King Mortgages v Satchi; Cash King v Satchi [2006] NSWSC 1303

SC

Bell J

Heard the proceedings: allowed Mrs S to vary the interest/fees/charges of the loans contracts and mortgages.

Mrs Satchi successful

Other proceedings - CA - King Mortgages and Cash King (2007/40034, 2007/40035, 2007/400367, 40037/27)

Mr and Mrs Satchi filed two NOM's seeking a stay of the judgment.

04.06.07

Decision - Satchi & Anor v Cash King Pty Ltd; Satchi v King Mortgages Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 133

CA

Hodgson JA

Heard above NOM's

Dismissed

09.10.09

NOM

-

-

Sought: leave to proceed (late)

-

12.10.09

Decision - Satchi v King Mortgages, Cash King [2009] NSWCA 358

CA

Handley AJA, Tobias and Campbell JJA

Heard the above NOM

Dismissed

Other proceedings - HC - King Mortgages and Cash King (S300/2009 and S301/2009)

N/A

App for special leave

-

-

Sought: special leave to appeal the CA judgment

-

31.03.10

Decision - Satchi and Anor v King Mortgage (in liq) [2010] HCASL 61

HC

Gummow and Kiefel JJ

Heard above special leave

Dismissed

Other proceedings - CA - Multilink Investments

DC proceedings brought by Multilink against Bylander, Mr Satchi and Mrs Satchi. All three appealed.

N/A

NOM

-

-

Sought: leave to appeal DC decision

-

14.03.01

Decision - Bylander v Multilink [2001] NSWCA 53

CA

Handley, Giles and Heydon JA

Heard NOM above. Appeal successful and judgment set aside.

Allowed

11.02.02

Decision - Bylander v Multilink [2002] NSWCA 16

CA

Mason P, Santow JA and Ipp AJA

Appeal dismissed

Dismissed

22.02.02

Decision

FMC

Reg Hedge

Sequestration order against Mr Satchi

-

Other proceedings - FMC - Multilink Investments (SZ63/01)

23.04.02

Special leave app

-

-

Sought: review orders of Reg Hedge (22.02.02).

-

07.05.02

Satchi v Multilink [2002] FMCA 84

FMC

Driver FM

Heard above app.

Dismissed

Other proceedings - FC - Multilink Investments (N492/02)

28.05.01

Appeal

-

-

Sought: appeal Driver FM's decision

-

N/A

NOM

-

-

Sought: stay of the sequestration order

-

27.06.02

Satchi v Multilink [2002] FCA 914

FCA

Jacobsen J

Heard above NOM.

Dismissed

02.08.12

Amended summons

-

-

Amended ground 3 - damages and losses

-

05.08.02

Satchi v Multilink [2002] FCA 974

FCA

Conti J

Heard amended ground of appeal - removed it

Dismissed

18.10.02

Satchi v Multilink [2002] FCA 1277

FCA

Conti J

Heard the appeal

Dismissed

Amendments

11 September 2012 - removed the words "Dennis Charles and Robert Stanley"

Amended paragraphs: 43

Decision last updated: 11 September 2012

Medium Neutral Citation:	National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2012] NSWSC 959
Hearing dates:	29/02/2012; 01/03/2012; 02/03/2012; 05/03/2012
Decision date:	11 September 2012
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Garling J
Decision:	(1) Mr Thambiappah Satchithanantham be, and hereby is, prohibited from instituting proceedings whether by way of final relief, or by interlocutory motion, or application in New South Wales, whether in his own name, or in the name of any other individual, or corporation, or legal entity. (2) Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham be, and hereby is, prohibited from instituting proceedings whether by way of final relief, or by interlocutory motion, or application in New South Wales, whether in her own name or in the name of any other individual, or corporation or legal entity. (3) Order both Mr Satchithanantham and Mrs Satchithanantham pay the National Australia Bank's costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for vexatious proceeding order pursuant to s 8 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - whether proceedings are vexatious - whether vexatious proceedings were instituted or conducted frequently - repeated relitigation of issues
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 Contracts Review Act 1980 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Real Property Act 1900 Supreme Court Act 1970 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited:	Attorney General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315 Attorney General v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192 Attorney General v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008 Bylander v Multilink [2001] NSWCA 53 Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 20; (1998) 192 CLR 285 DPP (Cth) v Pirone (1997) 68 SASR 106; (1997) 139 FLR 68 King Mortgages v Satchithanantham; Cash King v Satchithanantham [2006] NSWSC 1303 La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries (1986) 72 ALR 23 Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261 National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported) National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2010] NSWCA 244 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No.2) [2009] FCA 398 Pascoe v Liprini [2011] NSWSC 1484 Re A Solicitor's Clerk [1957] 3 All ER 617 Robertson v City of Nunawading [1973] VR 819; (1973) 29 LGRA 44 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2008] NSWADTAP 65 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) (RLD) [2008] NSWADTAP 87 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 411 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWSC, 30 March 2011, unreported) Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Sanjay Sarma t/as Adidev Enterprises [2007] NSWSC 642 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings [2009] NSWADT 237 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 316 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 715 Satchi & Satchi v Sharma [2007] NSWSC 1184 Satchithanantham v Jackson Smith Lawyers [2011] NSWSC 412 Satchithanantham v King Mortgage Pty Ltd (in liq) [2010] HCASL 61 Satchithanantham v King Mortgages, Cash King Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 358 Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 974 Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1277 Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 914 Satchithanantham v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FCA 198 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FMCA 562 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] NSWCA 395 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] HCA Trans 101 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 243 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCTTT 494) Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWSC 1338 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWCA 213 Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWSC 402 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] NSWCA 168 National Australia Bank Limited v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] FMCA 229 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported) Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 23 May 2007, unreported) Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2008] FMCA 940 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 1171 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 501 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 181 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 201 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] NSWCA 268 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47 Satchithanantham v Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported) Satchithanantham v Steffel [2008] NSWSC 1153 Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2007] NSWADTAP 74 Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2009] NSWADTAP 53 Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 30 Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] HCA SLD 586 Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham [2008] NSWADT 165 Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] NSWADT 70
Texts Cited:	Dennis Charles and Robert Stanley Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 7th ed (2011) Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	National Australia Bank (P) Thambiappah Satchithanantham (D1) Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham (D2)
Representation:	Counsel: A Leopold SC / Ms Bearup (P) T Satchithanantham (In person - D1 and D2) Solicitors: Dibbs Barker (P) T Satchithanantham (In person - D1 and D2)
File Number(s):	2011/259275