Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2011] NSWCA 213 Hearing dates: 25 July 2011 Decision date: 25 July 2011 Before: Hodgson JA Decision: Notice of Motion dismissed. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: PROCEDURE - Abuse of process. Cases Cited: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] NSWCA 268 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118 Satchithanantham and Ors v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 243 National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2010] NSWCA 244 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWSC 1338 Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 734 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: first appellant: Thambiappah SATCHITHANANTHAM second appellant: Hamalathasothy SATCHITHANANTHAM third appellant: Bramooth SATCHITHANANTHAM fourth appellant: SATCHI & SATCHI AUSTRALIA Fifth appellant: Sivamani THAMBIAPPAH, now known as Sivamani Thayaparan first respondent: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD (ABN 12 004 044 937) second respondent: Emma Jane HODGMAN third respondent: RAY WHITE REAL ESTATE, Parramatta fourth respondent: LOCAL COURT & SHERIFF, Parramatta fifth respondent: KING MORTGAGES PTY LTD (ABN 62 105 890 971) (in liquidation) sixth respondent: CASH KING PTY LTD (ABN 191 086 718 407) (in liquidation) seventh respondent: Mrs Anusuya NAGENDRA & Mr Nagendra SEETARAMIAH eighth respondent: INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICES AUSTRALIA Representation: applicant/first appellant: Mr Satchithanantham in person respondent National Australia Bank: Ms N Bearup File Number(s): 2007/00258225 Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2011-05-18 00:00:00 Before: The Registrar File Number(s): 2007/00258225 Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: I have before me a notice of motion which is said to be filed in relation to the decision made by the registrar on 18 May 2011, and is said to be listed for directions before the Court on 25 July 2011. 2The 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. 3Since that time there have been many applications made by the applicant seeking to overturn, or go behind, that decision. Among others, there might be mentioned an application to reopen a matter which was dismissed by me on 24 May 2010: see [2010] NSWCA 118. There were three similar notices of motion to similar effect dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2010: see [2010] NSWCA 243. On 28 September 2010 the Court of Appeal made orders restraining Mr Satchithanantham, on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife and/or son, from bringing further applications in those proceedings: see [2010] NSWCA 244. 4On 15 November 2010, White J refused an application made by Mr Satchithanantham, purportedly on behalf of himself, his wife and his son, to extend a caveat over the same property as had been dealt with in the previous proceedings: see [2010] NSWSC 1338; and on 14 July 2011, Schmidt J made orders restraining Mr Satchithanantham from lodging caveats over this property: see [2011] NSWSC 734. 5In what appears to be the current appeal, the registrar on 18 May 2011 noted a letter from Mr Satchithanantham's trustee in bankruptcy, abandoning actions being dealt with by him. It was put to the registrar that there were five appellants, and the registrar indicated to Mr Satchithanantham that he did not have leave to appear for them, and they were not before the Court; and on that basis, the registrar treated the appeal as discontinued. 6The 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. 7Accordingly the order of the Court is: the notice of motion is dismissed. oOo DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 July 2011