Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCA 1277

BANKRUPTCY – appeal from sequestration order of Federal Magistrate – previously represented appellant now unrepresented – appeal heard by single justice – stay application pending outcome of application for special leave to appeal to High Court previously dismissed by another justice of the Court – multitudinous purported grounds of appeal advanced in relation to Federal Magistrate’s decision – primary ground of appeal related to service of bankruptcy notice – other grounds of appeal related to service of creditor’s petition and refusal to adjourn bankruptcy proceedings pending outcome of decision of High Court on bankrupt’s application for special leave to appeal – no error in reasons for decision of Federal Magistrate – appeal dismissed.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) subs 25(1A)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) subs 41(5)

Bankruptcy Regulations regs 16.01(1), 16.01(2)

Martin v The Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] FCA 87 cited
Ahern v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 76 ALR 137 referred to
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 134 ALR 460 referred to
Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCA 914 referred to
Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCA 974 referred to
Re Tadeusz Stec; Ex parte Peter Scragg [1997] 462 FCA (30 May 1997) cited
Bendigo Bank Ltd v Williams (2000) 98 FCR 377 referred to
Kirk v Ashdown [1999] FCA 1664 referred to
Trustees of the Franciscan Missionaries of Maryv Weir (2000) 98 FCR 447 cited
Wilcox v Cottrell [2001] FCA 1357 cited

THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM v MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

N 492 OF 2002

CONTI J
18 OCTOBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 492 OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM

BETWEEN:

THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM
APPELLANT

AND:

MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 492 OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM

BETWEEN:

THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM
APPELLANT

AND:

MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE:

18 OCTOBER 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings before the Federal Magistrate

  1. In these reasons for judgment, I should state at the outset, because of the number of proceedings which I must address, that I have referred throughout these reasons for judgment to Mr Satchithanantham always as “appellant” and Multilink Investments Pty Limited always as “respondent”. On 7 May 2002, Federal Magistrate Driver dismissed an application for review of a sequestration order made by Registrar Hedge on 22 February 2002 against the appellant, at the instance of the respondent, his Honour having undertaken a re-hearing of those prior bankruptcy proceedings before the Registrar which had led to the making of that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] FCA 1277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd, the appellant, Satchithanantham, appealed against the decision of the Federal Magistrate and the subsequent rejection of a stay application by Jacobson J. The primary dispute concerned the rejection of a stay application by Jacobson J, which sought to halt the sequestration order made by the Federal Magistrate. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues at hand involved the validity of the grounds for the stay application and whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.

The court examined the reasons behind the Federal Magistrate's decision to reject the stay application. The Federal Magistrate concluded that the stay application did not have reasonable prospects of success and, therefore, should not adjourn the creditor's petition. Jacobson J also dismissed the stay application, finding that the appellant's appeal did not raise any new questions of general principle but rather re-agitated issues already addressed in previous proceedings. The court concluded that there was no error in the reasons provided by the Acting District Court Judge, and the issues raised on appeal did not constitute appealable errors.

The reasoning of the court was based on the lack of new legal principles raised in the appeal and the reiteration of previously decided issues. The court found that the appellant's appeal did not present any new grounds for overturning the previous decisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

CONTI J
The Federal Magistrate thereafter observed that apart from the grounds specifically advanced in the application for review before him, which have been summarised in [3] above, it had been conceded by counsel for the appellant that all elements necessary to support the creditor’s petition had been made out in the re-hearing proceedings before him. His Honour therefore concluded as follows at [22]:“I find that whether or not the application for special leave is genuine it does not have reasonable prospects of success and is almost certainly doomed to fail. Accordingly, I should not adjourn the petition to await the outcome of the special leave application.”The stay application of the appellant made in relation to the orders of the Federal Magistrate consequential upon his reasons for judgment of 7 May 2002 A stay application in relation to the sequestration order made by the Federal Magistrate was rejected by Jacobson J on 27 June 2002 (Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCA 914). On that occasion, as before me in the present appeal, the appellant appeared in person, and there was placed before his Honour the 32 grounds of appeal the subject of the notice of appeal filed 28 May 2002 from the decision of the Federal Magistrate to the Full Federal Court. His Honour’s reasons for judgment provide some detail as to the District Court and Court of Appeal proceedings to which I have already referred. Partly for the reason that the appellant’s supplementary grounds of notice of appeal to the Full Court purport to separately propound 13 sub-grounds of appeal relating to the reasons for judgment of Jacobson J, and partly in the light of what has been already mentioned in [6] above, it is appropriate for me to summarise the reasons of Jacobson J for rejection of that stay application, irrespective of the apparent absence of a properly constituted application for leave to appeal from his Honour’s decision, and of the grant of any such leave.(i)On 18 August 2000, Acting District Court Judge Boyd-Boland gave judgment adversely to the appellant for an amount of approximately $272,000, pursuant to a guarantee given by the appellant to the respondent in the present appeal (ie Multilink Investments Pty Limited); that judgment was given of course in the District Court proceedings to which reference has already been made.(ii)On 11 February 2002, the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal (Mason P, Santow JA and Ipp AJA), in the appellate proceedings to which reference has already been made, received submissions upon the appeal from the present appellant against the decision and judgment of Boland ADCJ. In dismissing that appeal without reserving judgment, their Honours expressed the unanimous opinion that the appeal did not raise any question of general principle, but merely re-agitated issues which had been already addressed by the Acting District Court Judge, or else the appellant’s submissions on the appeal had attempted to introduce new issues which were not the subject of the grounds of appeal formulated in the notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal.(iii)There was no error apparent in the reasons of the Acting District Court Judge, the issues propounded on appeal being principally that his Honour had erred in his assessment and evaluation of the evidence, and hence there was no appealable error.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CONTI J

Full text does not contain this section.