Case: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FMCA 562
Outcome: related
applicant tendered in evidence before me the Reasons for Judgment of Driver FM dated 16 June 2009 in proceedings SYG 786 of 2009 ( Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FMCA 562). At [3] [10] of those Reasons, the Federal Magistrate said: The background to the matter is somewhat detailed but has been dealt with in earlier proceedings in various courts. On 12 December 2007 the Supreme Court of New South Wales made a costs order against the applicant. An appeal against the costs order was dismissed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 14 July 2008. On 10 December 2008 the High Court refused special leave to appeal to that Court. On 14 May 2008, the respondent creditor served a bankruptcy notice on the applicant based on the judgment debt created by the costs order. The bankruptcy notice was not complied with. The bankruptcy notice was challenged in earlier proceedings in this Court and that application was dismissed on 1 July 2008 by Smith FM ( Satchithanantham v NAB Limited [2008] FMCA 940). The applicant appealed from that decision to the Federal Court and on 27 February 2009 his Honour Edmonds J dismissed that appeal ( Satchithanantham v NAB Limited [2009] FCA 198). A creditor's petition was then brought and was listed to be heard on 15 October 2008. There was some delay pending the resolution of the appeal before Edmonds J. The applicant did not attend the hearing of the creditor's petition which occurred on 11 March 2009. A sequestration order and other orders were made by Smith FM on that day ( NAB Limited v Satchithanantham (No 2) [2009] FMCA 229). The applicant appealed from those orders to the Federal Court. On 11 May 2009 her Honour Stone J dismissed that appeal ( Satchithanantham v NAB Limited [2009] FCA 501). I understand that the applicant is also seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court against both the judgment of Edmonds J and the judgment of Stone J. I understand that there are also continuing proceedings in the Supreme Court. The application is supported by three affidavits by the applicant filed on 3 April 2009, 26 May 2009, and 16 June 2009. That comprises a substantial volume of material, some of which was objected to by the respondent. I received all of the affidavit material on the basis that I would attribute appropriate weight to it and would treat as submissions those parts of it which were submissions rather than assertions of fact. The respondent relies upon the affidavit of Jane Heather Pike made on 7 May 2009. I also received as an exhibit a bundle of documents comprising the applicant's notice of opposition to the creditor's petition, his notice of appeal in the Federal Court earlier this year, and an amended notice of appeal. The fundamental problem facing the applicant is that he is seeking to re-agitate in these present proceedings issues that have already been dealt with in this Court and in the Federal Court. He invites the Court to again revisit the costs order of the Supreme Court. He also invites the Court to revisit the earlier decisions of Smith FM and the appeals dealt with in the Federal Court. I am, of course, bound by the two judgments of the Federal Court relating to the bankruptcy notice and the sequestration order. I gave the applicant an opportunity to explain to me whether there was any basis other than the issues which have previously been dealt with in the earlier Court proceedings to support the application for annulment, but having heard his oral submissions at some length, I have not discerned any issue that was not dealt with in the earlier proceedings or which could not have been. In his judgment at [20], Edmonds J found that the various attacks by the applicant on the debt underlying the bankruptcy notice were vexatious and frivolous and were correctly dismissed by Smith FM. In her judgment at [14] Stone J rejected the claims of procedural unfairness arising out of the applicant's non attendance before this Court when it made its sequestration order. For his part, Smith FM dealt at some length with the issues raised by the applicant concerning the adverse costs order in the Supreme Court in both of his judgments. Having regard to the earlier proceedings and the material now presented by the applicant, I have come to the view that the present application is an abuse of process. It is simply a vehicle being used by the applicant to re-agitate issues that have already been dealt with. The application should not have been brought and further like applications should be prevented. I will order that the application is dismissed as an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 13.10(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). No further application by this applicant in relation to the sequestration order made by this Court on 11 March 2009 be received for filing in this Court, except by leave of a Federal Magistrate.