Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 198

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 198

THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD

NSD 1141 of 2008

EDMONDS J

11 MARCH 2009

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1141 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM

Appellant

AND: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD

Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER: 27 FEBRUARY 2009

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1141 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM

Appellant

AND: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD

Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 11 MARCH 2009

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 On 27 February 2009 I dismissed the appellant's appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM): Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] FMCA 940, and indicated that publication of my reasons would shortly follow. 2 The appeal put in issue an order dismissing the appellant's application to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued on 15 April 2008 at the request of the respondent ('the Bank') and served on the appellant on 14 May 2008 ('the bankruptcy notice'). 3 The bankruptcy notice relies upon an order made by James J (of the Supreme Court of New South Wales) on 12 December 2007 that the appellant pay the Bank's costs (of the motions referred to in the order of 12 December 2007), which was in the following terms: 2. Thambiappah Satchithanantham pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion filed by Thambiappah Satchithanantham dated 19 October 2007 and of the motion filed by the plaintiff dated 20 November 2007, in the sum of $10,000 inclusive of GST pursuant to section 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 on an indemnity basis within 28 days; (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as 'the costs order'.) 4 The appellant's notice of appeal filed on 21 July 2008 ('the notice of appeal') contains some 20 paragraphs under the heading 'grounds of appeal' but many of them assert no more than that his Honour erred 'in law and facts' by doing things or by not doing things, without any particularisation of the alleged errors. 5 The appellant filed an amended notice of appeal on 15 September 2008 containing a further 20 paragraphs under the heading 'grounds of appeal' as well as repeating the 'grounds of appeal' in the notice of appeal. Leave was required for the filing of this amended notice of appeal because it was out of time. The appellant sought that leave on the hearing of the appeal in reliance on his affidavit sworn and filed in Court on 10 December 2008. This affidavit was read on the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was conducted on the basis that leave for the filing of the amended notice of appeal had been granted and I now grant that leave. 6 The so-called 'grounds of appeal' in the amended notice of appeal are largely repetitive of the 'grounds of appeal' in the notice of appeal and suffer from the same deficiencies. 7 On the hearing of the appeal, the appellant said that he relied on: (1) Written submissions filed on 28 January 2009. (2) Written supplementary submissions filed in Court on 27 February 2009. (3) Three affidavits sworn by him: (a) the first on 14 October 2008 and filed the same date; (b) the second on 22 October 2008 and filed in Court on 23 October 2008; and (c) the third being the affidavit referred to in [5] above. These three affidavits were read without objection on the hearing of the appeal. 8 However, in the course of his oral submissions, the appellant made no reference to any of these documents although he did make reference to some of the matters to which the documents refer. 9 None of the grounds of appeal identify any basis for error on the part of his Honour, whether of law or fact, and most of them seek to agitate issues arising out of other proceedings, one involving the Bank and the appellant's wife in the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a property she owns. 10 While I can well understand the anxiety of the appellant to ventilate and agitate grievances which he harbours and genuinely views, rightly or wrongly, as being sourced in the conduct of the Bank towards him and his wife, this is not the proceeding, and perhaps this Court is not even the forum, in which to do it. 11 His appeal to this Court has no foundation. Some of the grounds are incomprehensible. Doing the best I can, I will address the other grounds. Before doing so, there is one matter I should note. 12 In the course of his reasons for judgment, his Honour made reference to various proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales taken by the Bank as mortgagee over properties which appear to be in the ownership of close relatives of the appellant; as well as to the appellant's attempts to be joined as a party to these proceedings; and the dismissal of the appellant's appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. In her written submissions, counsel for the Bank drew my attention to developments in these proceedings since 1 July 2008, the date of the hearing of the appellant's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice before his Honour. These included: (a) the appellant's appeals from the judgments of MacCready AsJ dismissing his claims against the Bank in proceedings Nos. 6031/07 and 5597/07 were dismissed by White J on 26 September 2008; (b) the appellant's further motion in Court of Appeal proceeding No. 40444/08, challenging the costs order was dismissed with costs; (c) the appellant's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant leave to appeal against the orders made by James J on 12 December 2007 was refused on 10 December 2008; (d) the hearing of proceeding No. 15249/05 before McCallum J was completed on 5 September 2008. Judgment was handed down on 6 February 2009 (National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2009] NSWSC 21) wherein the Bank was directed to bring in short minutes of order including an order for possession of the property at Westmead owned by the appellant's wife.