Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:
Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2008] NSWCA 168

FILE NUMBER(S):
40044/08

HEARING DATE(S):
14 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 July 2008

EX TEMPORE DATE:
14 July 2008

PARTIES:
Thambiappah Satchitchanantham (First Applicant
Bramooth Satchitchanantham (Second Applicant)
National Australia Bank Limited (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:
Campbell JA     

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court - Common Law Division

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
15249/05

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
James J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
12 December 2007

COUNSEL:
First Appellant, in person (Applicants)
R Rydge (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
First Appellant, in person (Applicants)
Dibbs Abbott Stillman (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application brought on Notice of Motion in proceedings in Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal – where final hearing has taken place and application for leave to appeal rejected – circumstances in which relief can be obtained in proceedings after final relief has been decided – application to set aside costs order of Associate Justice in proceedings below – where no application to appeal against order made – contention that Judge in proceedings below erred in arriving at quantum of costs order – where leave to appeal against that decision sought but not granted – review sought of decision of bench of two judges by a single judge – whether open on authorities to make such an  order – whether contrary to appellate structure – review  sought of order of Registrar dismissing motion seeking to vary costs orders in Court of Appeal and court below and review of orders of Court of Appeal – where costs order cannot be enforced as a matter of law until assessed – where orders made in specific amounts to avoid need for costs assessment – where no procedural course open in this Court to challenge refusal of leave to appeal – application for stay of costs orders in proceedings below – whether jurisdictional basis for order – where no application made for leave to appeal from judgments

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40044/08
SC 15249/05

CAMPBELL JA

14 JULY 2008

THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

Ex Tempore Judgment

  1. CAMPBELL JA:  This is an application that is brought on a Notice of Motion in proceedings 40044 of 2008 in the Court of Appeal.  Those proceedings are ones which sought leave to appeal from a judgment that had been given by James J on 12 December 2007 in proceedings 15249 of 2005. 

  2. The proceedings that James J was hearing were proceedings seeking possession of a residential property at 76 Houison Street, Westmead.  The sole defendant in the proceedings was Mr Satchithanantham’s wife.  Mr Satchithanantham had made various applications in the course of the proceedings to be added as a defendant.  There were in all four separate notices of motion in which he sought that relief.  On at least some of the occasions he also sought that he be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank 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
[2008] NSWCA 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Satchithanantham, sought various forms of relief from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against the National Australia Bank. The application was brought by Notice of Motion and concerned a costs order made by an Associate Justice in proceedings below, as well as a decision of a bench of two judges of the Court of Appeal. The applicant also sought to review orders of the Court of Appeal itself.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether it was open to a single judge to review a decision of a bench of two judges, whether such a review was contrary to the appellate structure, and whether there was a jurisdictional basis for the Court to grant a stay of the costs orders made in the proceedings below, particularly in circumstances where leave to appeal against those decisions had been refused. The applicant also sought to challenge the refusal of leave to appeal, a procedural course that was not available in the Court.

Campbell JA reasoned that there was no procedural course open to the applicant in the Court of Appeal to challenge the refusal of leave to appeal. His Honour further held that a single judge could not review the decision of a bench of two judges, as this would be contrary to the established appellate structure. Consequently, the application for a stay of the costs orders lacked a jurisdictional basis. The Court noted that the costs orders had been made in specific amounts to avoid the need for assessment, and that such an order could not be enforced until assessed.

The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.