Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118
HEARING DATE(S):	24 May 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	24 May 2010
JUDGMENT OF:	Hodgson JA
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	24 May 2010
DECISION:	Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – Application to reopen appeal and for stay – Application refused.
CATEGORY:	Procedural and other rulings
PARTIES:	Hemalathasothy Ranjini SATCHITHANANTHAM (applicant) NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED (respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 2009/298148
COUNSEL:	APPELLANT in person with her husband Ms N BEARUP (respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Dibbs Baker (respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 15249/05
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	McCallum J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	6 February 2009
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2009] NSWSC 21

- 2 -

2009/298148

HODGSON JA

Monday 24 MAY 2010

H R SATCHITHANANTHAM v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

Judgment

1 HIS HONOUR: I am dealing with a notice of motion filed on 19 May 2010, seeking a number of orders, but particularly seeking orders that will have the effect that orders for possession of the applicant's property not be given effect to.

2 The grounds of the notice of motion come down, it seems to me, to three points that are sought to be made. The first two points concern two previous notices of motion which the applicant claims have never been dealt with, namely, a notice of motion at first instance dated 12 February 2009 and a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal dated 14 May 2009. The other ground is a challenge to the calculation of the debt secured on the applicant's property. The claim appears to be that payments of $335,000 or thereabouts made have not been taken into account.

3 In my opinion, the notice of motion should be dismissed. The matters relied on were all matters that could (and should, if they were to be relied on) 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. The primary judge gave her principal judgment on 6 February 2009. The matter was stood over to 3 March 2009, inter alia for the purposes of establishing the amount due under the mortgage. Evidence was led by the bank as to the amount due, showing credits and debits, and on the basis of that evidence the primary judge made the determination she did, that the amount…