National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham - [2012] NSWSC 959 - NSWSC 2012 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham

[2012] NSWSC 959

Supreme Court of NSW|2012-09-11|Before: Garling J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2012-09-11

Before

Garling J

Catchwords

(1998) 192 CLR 285 DPP (Cth) v Pirone (1997) 68 SASR 106
(1997) 139 FLR 68 King Mortgages v Satchithanantham

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

(1998) 192 CLR 285 DPP (Cth) v Pirone (1997) 68 SASR 106(1997) 139 FLR 68 King Mortgages v Satchithanantham

Judgment (39 paragraphs)

[1]

Background 48The long history of litigation between NAB and Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham commenced in the principal proceedings in 2005. The original proceedings, appeal to the Court of Appeal and application for special leave to appeal to the High Court are accepted by NAB as non-vexatious. These will be detailed shortly. 49Rather, NAB submits Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham made frequent interlocutory applications in the principal proceedings, "most of [which], and the subsequent reviews or appeals instituted following their dismissal, were vexatious". 50The applications considered in the judgment fall into the following ten categories: (1)Mr Satchithanantham attempting to be joined as a party, (2)Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham attempting to prevent enforcement of orders, (3)Further vexatious applications following the dismissal of a Special Leave application to the High Court of Australia. (4)Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal proceedings (5)Other proceedings involving NAB as a party (6)Bankruptcy proceedings (7)Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd proceedings (8)Other proceedings (9)Multilink Investments Pty Ltd proceedings (10)King Mortgages Pty Ltd and Cash King Pty Ltd proceedings

[2]

2009 Judgment and Orders of McCallum J 51On 10 November 2005, the National Australia Bank ("the NAB") brought proceedings against Mrs Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham in the Supreme Court, to recover a loan made to Mrs Satchithanantham in April 2003, and to take possession of a property at Westmead ("the property"), which Mrs Satchithanantham had mortgaged to the NAB as security for the loan. 52Mrs Satchithanantham was at all material times, the sole registered proprietor of the premises. The property was originally purchased in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham, but became registered in Mrs Satchithanantham's name following Mr Satchithanantham's first bankruptcy. 53Mrs Satchithanantham defended the proceedings. The hearing took place between April and September 2008 before McCallum J, and judgment was delivered on 6 February 2009. 54The final orders were made on 3 March 2009, when McCallum J ordered that: (1)NAB have possession of the property, and (2)Mrs Satchithanantham pay $461,043.74 (rather than the actual loan amount of $679,000), (3)Mrs Satchithanantham pay two-thirds of NAB's costs. 55On 7 April 2009, an application by Mrs Satchithanantham for a stay of the final orders was dismissed by McCallum J. However, on 18 May 2009, Ipp JA stayed the final orders until the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the hearing of which had been expedited to 1 July 2009. 56The Court of Appeal, constituted by Giles, Hodgson and Young JJA, dismissed the appeal on 2 September 2009, but extended the stay with conditions until 1 November 2009: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] NSWCA 268. 57On 26 March 2010, subsequent to Mrs Satchithanantham filing an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court on 30 September 2009, oral argument was fixed for 23 April 2010, and a stay was granted on the final orders until 30 April 2010, with the consent of NAB. 58On 23 April 2010, the application for special leave was heard by French CJ and Kiefel J (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] HCA Trans 101). In dismissing the application French CJ stated: "we are firmly of the view that there should be no grant of special leave ... No error of principle or any other error which would justify the grant of special leave by this Court has been shown. The application for special leave to appeal will be dismissed with costs". 59Eviction of the occupants of the property took place on 26 May 2010. 60The property was sold by the agents for the mortgagee in possession via a public auction on 25 September 2010, and contracts were exchanged on the same day for $860,000. The purchasers were Anusuya Nagendra and Nagendra Seetaramiah.

[3]

Notice of motion - Sully J - 11 September 2006 61A month after the statement of claim was filed, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion on 2 December 2005, seeking orders that both he and his 16 year old son, Bramooth Satchithanantham, be joined as defendants in the proceedings. The motion was heard by Sully J on 11 September 2006, together with another motion. 62The application was made "upon the basis that both the applicant and the son are 'occupiers' of the subject premises". Mr Satchithanantham tendered a document entitled "Memorandum of Family Deed of Trust" as evidence that he and his son each held a one-third equitable interest in the property. Sully J found that, as far his Honour understood Mr Satchithanantham's evidence from the bar table, it was "not controversial, at least from his point of view, that the document and its contents were not made available to, or in any way disclosed to the bank either in the whole or in part before the making of the mortgage advance": National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported) at 8-9. There was also a second document, a current lease for storage of goods for a third party. 63Sully J dismissed the application. His Honour did not finally decide whether Mr Satchithanantham was an occupier, but indicated he was "far from persuaded that is the case", and ultimately dismissed the application because rather than being conducive to doing justice in the principal proceedings, the joinder would tend in the opposite direction. "The one thing that the proceedings, as at present constituted does not need, unless there is some imperative reason founded in the requirements of justice, is to add one, still less two, defendants to the principal proceedings, when all that would bring in its wake would be further delay, further technical skirmishes, further obfuscation of simple issues, further waste of time and further waste of costs": National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported) at 12.

[5]

Subsequent repetition of the joinder application 65Seven further repetitious proceedings were subsequently instituted by Mr Satchithanantham for joinder of himself and his son as defendants in the principal proceedings. I am satisfied that each of these notices of motion constituted vexatious proceedings within the meaning of the VP Act, because the applications were instituted and pursued without any reasonable ground. As well, having regard to the judgments of Sully J and the Court of Appeal, the continued attempts to relitigate the same issue was an abuse of the process of the Court. 66By notice of motion dated 15 June 2007, Mr Satchithanantham sought orders that he and his son be joined as a third party to the principal proceedings. The application included similar, so called "equitable interest" grounds as the first joinder application. 67On 25 June 2007 in an oral judgment dismissing the application with costs, Registrar Bradford held that "if an interlocutory application has been made unsuccessfully it is generally inappropriate to make a subsequent application for the same orders. At least this is so if there has been no material change of circumstances and the subsequent application is based on substantially the same evidence. This seems to be a situation which falls within that summary". 68On about 26 July 2007, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking orders to add himself and his son as defendants, and to set aside the orders made by Registrar Bradford on 25 June 2007. In dismissing the notice of motion (or appeal) on 24 September 2007, Malpass AsJ said "There is nothing to suggest anything new or different. All the grounds were stated in the previous notices of motion and indicated repetition". On referral from Malpass AsJ, Registrar Bradford made an order for costs. 69On or about 19 October 2007, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking to add himself and his son as defendants, and to set aside the orders made by Malpass AsJ. The application was dismissed by James J on 12 December 2007, who said in his reasons at [18] and [19]: "[t]here is no, or very little, admissible affidavit evidence before me which would provide a foundation for any of Mr Satchithanantham's assertions. I do not consider that Mr Satchithanantham has shown any new grounds which have not already been considered by judicial officers in one or other of the applications he has made". 70James J also made orders, in response to a notice of motion from NAB that restrained Mr Satchithanantham from filing and serving any notice of motion, and from making any oral application in the proceedings without leave. Costs were ordered in NAB's favour in the fixed sum of $10,000. 71Mr Satchithanantham filed an application for leave to appeal from the orders of James J refusing to join him as a party to the principal proceedings. The application was dismissed with costs by Mason P and Handley AJA, Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported). After describing the successive nature of joinder applications, Mason P noted: "His Honour [James J] also considered the matter quite independently of the decisions of the other judicial officers and concluded that he was not satisfied that Mr Satchithanantham had discharged the onus of showing that he should be joined as a party. In my view his Honour was entirely correct in that conclusion. To add Mr Satchithanantham as a party in the proceedings between the Bank and his wife would only serve to confuse the issues that are involved in those proceedings." 72On or about 29 May 2008, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking, inter alia, to set aside the orders of James J made on 12 December 2007, and to join Bramooth Satchithanantham as a defendant and cross claimant in the principal proceedings. Registrar Schell dismissed the motion with costs on 16 June 2008. 73On or about 25 June 2008, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking to, inter alia, "Review the orders made by the court from 14/4/08 till date and grant appropriate relief as to the orders sought in the applicants' joinder applications/leave to appeal in this court involved in the file matter: 40044/08". 74In dismissing the notice of motion (or appeal) with costs on 14 July 2008, Campbell JA said "it is fundamentally opposed to the way in which the appellate structure operates for a single judge to review a decision that have been given by a bench of 2 judges, that disposes the application before the court. There is simply no jurisdiction to make [the order], insofar as it seeks review of the decision of 14 May 2008": Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] NSWCA 168 at [11]. 75Mr Satchithanantham applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from the 14 May 2008 orders of Mason P and Handley AJA. The application was dismissed on 10 December 2008 on the basis that "An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success": Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] HCSL 586 per Hayne and Crennan JJ at [2].

[6]

Attempts To Prevent Enforcement Of Orders 76As I have said above, the final orders in the principal proceedings were made on 3 March 2009 by McCallum J. There was a stay on the final orders extending to 1 November 2009, due to an order by the Court of Appeal on 2 September 2009. 77However, five further vexatious proceedings were instituted by Mr and/or Mrs Satchithanantham to stay the final orders. (1)Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed a motion in their names dated 14 May 2009, and in the name of Bramooth Satchithanantham, seeking, inter alia, to stay the final orders. Twenty-three "grounds of appeal" were listed, which included that "the applicants stand to suffer irreparable injury and prejudice and undue hardship" if a stay was not granted pending the Court of Appeal hearing. The grounds also alleged various misrepresentations to the Court by legal representatives for the NAB and Hoeben J. On 1 July 2009, Mrs Satchithanantham, through her legal representative Mr Patel, elected not to move on the motion. Mr Satchithanantham moved on the motion, which was dismissed with costs. (2)Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion dated 25 May 2009 seeking, inter alia, to vary or discharge the orders made by Ipp JA on 18 May 2009. The 12 grounds included allegations that the orders of Ipp JA were heard and determined on duress, that NAB's legal representatives misled Ipp JA and that due to financial constraints, lack of legal representation and health reasons it would not be possible to comply with the timetable required in advance of the Court of Appeal hearing. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court for the hearing of the notice of motion, which was dismissed by Giles JA on 15 June 2009. (3)Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion dated 11 September 2009 seeking, inter alia, to stay the orders made by the Court of Appeal on 2 September 2009, general stay orders and to relist Mrs Satchithanantham's stay motion dated 14 May 2009 described above, which on 1 July 2009 was not proceeded with by her. The thirty-one grounds canvassed allegations of collusion, fraud and misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of NAB. In addition, issues of Mrs Satchithanantham's representation and health were included. Finally, submissions challenged the validity and amount owing under the loan facility. Both Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were present in Court for the hearing of the motion. Young JA dismissed the motion with costs on 27 October 2009, on the basis that the lack of evidence before the Court precluded any justification for a further stay. However, his Honour ordered that the writ of possession be stayed until 17 November 2009, provided Mrs Satchithanantham made a payment to the NAB for interest in the sum of $4,000. (4)On 6 November 2009, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed a motion, additionally naming Bramooth Satchithanantham as an applicant, seeking to review the orders made by Young JA on 27 October 2009, and seeking a stay pending an application for special leave to the High Court, to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision of 2 September 2009. The grounds challenged the validity of the loan facility and continued interest charges, and alleged counsel for NAB had misled Young JA on 27 October 2009. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court for the hearing. Mr Satchithanantham accepted at the hearing of the motion that although his name and his son's name were added as parties on the motion, his wife was the only appropriate party. The motion was heard on 17 November 2009, and dismissed with costs by the Court of Appeal on 4 December 2009: Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] NSWCA 395. Allsop P, with Basten JA and Handley AJA agreeing, said at [27] "[t]he application for special leave is less than fully coherent" and at [34] "I am not presently persuaded on the basis of Mr Patel's submissions to this Court on the substantive appeal and from how Young JA dealt with the matter that there is an available ground of appeal". (5)On 18 March 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in his own name and in the names of Mrs Satchithanantham, his son and Satchi & Satchi Australia, seeking various orders directed at preventing the execution of NAB's writ of possession, which was scheduled to take place on 31 March 2010. In addition to orders regarding the amount owing to NAB, the orders sought in excess of $1 million in damages from NAB. The grounds contained allegations regarding the proposed sale of the property, personal hardship and false and misleading conduct by NAB's legal representatives to obtain the writ of possession. (6)The application was dismissed on 23 March 2010 by Hoeben J. At the hearing Mr Satchithanantham falsely claimed that on 4 December 2009 Basten JA had granted a stay of the final orders until the High Court application was determined. In dismissing the application, Hoeben J said at [12]: "Mrs Satchithanantham, first of all, you are in the wrong Court. But, in any event, I have read the judgments. I have read the judgment of Justice McCallum. I have read the two judgments of the Court of Appeal. There is nothing, nothing you have said to me today which would justify me in granting you a stay, even if I had the power, which I do not." 78Each of these proceedings was vexatious because there was no reasonable grounds for the somewhat extravagant grounds set out as a basis for the orders. The inclusion of these grounds, and a claim for $1 million in damages were such as to lead only to a conclusion that the proceedings were instituted to, or else had the effect of, causing a delay in the NAB's attempts to enforce the Court's orders. I am satisfied that, as well, each of these applications, because of the content of them, and the identity of Mr Satchithanantham and his son, Bramooth, as moving parties, that each of them constituted an abuse of the process of the Court.

[7]

Further Applications Following Dismissal of Special Leave Application 79Sixteen further vexatious applications were made following the dismissal on 23 April 2010 of Mrs Satchithanantham's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. 80On 27 April 2010, a notice of motion was signed by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham seeking orders directed at preventing the execution of the writ of possession by the respondent NAB. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court when the motion was heard and dismissed with costs by McClellan CJ at CL on 29 April 2010, who said "the defendant has pursued but now exhausted all of her available legal remedies and I am satisfied that there would be no justice in my continuing the stay". 81On 30 April 2010, Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, seeking to prevent execution by the respondent NAB on its writ of possession and orders regarding the amount owed to NAB. R S Hulme J dismissed the application with costs in the presence of Mrs Satchithanantham on 19 May 2010, saying: "with regard to the material which is before me, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the current applications are an abuse of process, firstly because nothing new has been put before me to indicate substantial new matters which could not have been put before Justice McClellan, or perhaps which were not put before him and, secondly, because it was clear that at least most of the matters which the defendant relies upon in support of the application for a stay were matters which, were they to be seriously contended, should reasonably have been brought to Court long before this." 82On 19 May 2010, Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal proceedings, seeking a stay of the writ of possession against the respondent NAB and that the final orders by McCallum J of 3 March 2009 be set aside. The grounds claimed two previous notices of motion had not been dealt with, namely those dated 12 February 2009 and 14 May 2009. In addition, there was a challenge to the calculation of the debt secured on the applicant's property. Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both present in Court when the application was dismissed by Hodgson JA on 24 May 2010 with costs (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118). His Honour said at [3]-[5] these were "3 ... matters that could (and should, if they were to be relied upon) 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." 83On 7 June 2010, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal (also naming their son as an applicant), seeking a stay of the orders made by McCallum J on 3 March 2009, a review of the orders of Hodgson JA of 24 May 2010, and that all orders made by the Supreme Court in the court below set aside. Various orders for payments in favour of the applicants were also claimed. The grounds extended over 14 pages and covered in more detail the orders sought, claimed the NAB's legal representatives misled various judicial officers and also sought to relitigate the original joinder issue. 84On 24 June 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants. The motion sought a stay of all orders made since 3 March 2009 and the setting aside or review or variation of the orders of Giles JA on 15 June 2009 and Campbell JA of 14 July 2008. The motion also sought orders that the property, of which NAB taken possession on 25 May 2010, be returned to the possession of the applicants. The four pages of grounds allege extreme hardship on the Satchithanantham family, and misconduct of NAB's legal representatives, coupled with a lack of faith in the judicial system due to collusion with NAB. 85On 6 August 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, with himself and Bramooth Satchithanantham as applicants. The motion sought a stay of all interlocutory and final orders, and possession of the property to be returned to "the occupants and tenants". The stay orders sought included a stay of the hearing of NAB's notice of motion filed 29 June 2010 seeking to restrain Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham from filing and serving or making any oral applications in the Court of Appeal proceedings, without the leave of a judge of the Court. 86The notices of motion referred to in paragraphs [83], [84] and [85], filed on 7 June 2010, 24 June 2010 and 6 August 2010 respectively, were heard and dismissed on 13 September 2010 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 243). Handley AJA, with Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing, said at [13] "the proceedings before this Court on these three notices of motion cannot serve any useful purpose and are a clear abuse of process". The Court explained at [13]: "The judgment of this Court on 2 September 2009 dismissing the appeal from the judgment of McCallum J on 6 February that year finally determined the rights of Mrs Satchi and the Bank and the High Court refused special leave to appeal. This means that the merits of this Court's judgment of 2 September can no longer be examined or re-examined in any court anywhere. The judgment for possession has now been enforced. The merits or otherwise of the many interlocutory orders made in the Common Law Division and in this Court since 2006 are now only of historical interest, if that. The proposed re-examination of the merits of those orders cannot affect the rights of the parties as finally determined by this Court on 2 September 2009." 87The hearing of NAB's notice of motion filed 29 June 2010 occurred on 13 September 2010. Judgment was delivered on 28 September 2010. When orders were made restraining Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham from filing any notices of motion in the Court of Appeal proceedings (National Australia Bank v Satchithanantham [2010] NSWCA 244). Handley AJA, with whom Macfarlan JA agreed, said at [23] and [27]-[29]: "23. The respondents were entitled to challenge the final judgment of McCallum J, by an appeal to this Court, and were entitled to challenge the decision of this Court by an application to the High Court for special leave. When the High Court refused special leave on 23 April 2010 the respondents had exhausted all possible avenues for legal challenge to the substantive judgment in favour of the Bank for possession of the property and mortgage debt. ... 27. Since the High Court refused special leave on 23 April 2010, the respondents have made five unsuccessful applications to the Common Law Division and four unsuccessful applications to this Court. 28. In my judgment the nine unsuccessful applications made by the respondent since 23 April this year were vexatious and abuses of the process of the Court. 29. The history I have outlined established that the respondents have frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in this Court and in the Common Law Division". 88Sackville AJA agreed with the orders, although provided separate reasons, saying at [38] "there can be no doubt that the respondents have abused the process of the Court by filing repeated unmeritorious motions in the Court of Appeal proceedings after the Court made final orders on 2 September 2009". His Honour expressed some concern about the narrow scope of the orders sought, and that "[w]ider orders might well have been sought by the bank pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008". 89I respectfully agree with these conclusions, and the terms in which the Judges of the Court of Appeal have expressed themselves. 90On 25 May 2010, Mrs Satchithanantham made an oral application to Barr J for a stay of the execution of the writ of possession. The application was dismissed with costs, due to insufficient evidence to support a stay. Furthermore, Barr J questioned the authenticity of the documents sought to be used in support of the application. 91On 26 May 2010, Mr Satchithanantham signed a notice of motion naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants. The respondents were NAB and a partner of Dibbs Abbott Stillman, Emma Hodgman. The orders sought included a stay of the writ of possession and a stay of the eviction of the applicants and tenants of the property. Orders were also sought to file and serve an amended statement of claim in the principal proceedings, and a repetition of the original joinder application. Mr Satchithanantham also sought to rely on the Deed of Family Trust, which had been conceded by Mr Satchithanantham to Sully J had not come to the notice of NAB (see [62] above). Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham were both in Court. The motion was dismissed with costs by Barr J. 92On 25 September 2010, Mr Satchithanantham brought a notice of motion before the Supreme Court. The notice of motion was signed only by Mr Satchithanantham, but named applicants included all three Satchithananthams in addition to Satchi & Australia Pty Ltd, Satchi & Satchi Australia, Singapore Stylmart Sydney and Stylmart Satchi Australia. The orders sought, ex parte, that the auction sale of the Westmead property scheduled at 2pm that day be stayed and be further prohibited on the basis that an arrangement for sale for $1,200,000 was in place. It appears the application was heard by Hall J and a stay was not granted. 93On 27 September 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion, naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants. NAB was the respondent, with Emma Hodgman, Jane Pike, who were solicitors acting for NAB, and Nicolette Bearup, a barrister who had appeared for NAB, named as proposed respondents. The orders sought to set aside or review the orders made on 13 September 2010, and also to set aside the orders in the principal proceedings made on 3 March 2009. The orders also sought a stay of the sale of the Westmead property which had happened two days earlier, and a declaration that the auction sale was an abuse of the Real Property Act 1900. 94The grounds asserted a denial of natural justice in earlier proceedings, and the "criminal nature" of the property's auction on 25 September 2010, due to NAB, the real estate agent and auctioneer engaging in "criminal activities and conduct". 95Registrar Riznyczok ordered that the motion be struck out with costs on 18 October 2010. In doing so, the Registrar noted the orders made on 28 September 2010 and stated that the motion was clearly an abuse of process. 96On 10 November 2010, on an application by Mr Satchithanantham to have the motion re-listed, the 25 September 2010 notice of motion was relisted before James J. Contemporaneous notes of the legal representative for NAB indicate James J was not satisfied that Hall J had given Mr Satchithanantham leave to file the notice of motion as required pursuant to the orders made by James J on 12 December 2007 and was not satisfied that he should do so. I accept these notes as an accurate record of what occurred. 97On 23 December 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion naming all three members of his family as applicants. The six respondents included NAB, Emma Hodgman, Local Court at Parramatta and the Sheriff at Parramatta, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta, King Mortgages Pty Ltd and the purchasers of the property. The orders sought to extend and reinstate caveats, stay orders associated with the sale of the property and the proceedings generally, and disputed the amount owing under the mortgage and that NAB's mortgage over the property be set aside. 98The eight pages of grounds include allegations of false and misleading representations and evidence by NAB's legal representatives to the Courts, "deliberately blocked" evidence, and that the NAB failed to establish in Court, since the judgment in the principal proceedings, the correct amount owing under the mortgage. 99On 4 January 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed an amended notice of motion additionally naming the Registrar-General of the Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) as the fifth respondent. The additional grounds alleged the LPMA had been acting against their own rules and procedures by granting "favours and wrongful powers" to the mortgagee. 100The notice of motion was dismissed by Registrar Bradford on 21 February 2011, substantially because Mr Satchithanantham was not a party to the proceedings and, the motions had been filed without leave of a Judge of the Court, in contravention of the orders made by James J on 12 December 2007. 101On 22 February 2011, Mr Satchithanantham sought to re-agitate the notice of motion dismissed by Registrar Bradford on the day before. In an ex tempore judgment, McCallum J dismissed the motion on the basis that the application was in contravention of the orders of James J of 12 December 2007. 102On 4 April 2011, following upon a Notice of Appeal filed on 9 February 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. The six named applicants included the three Satchithananthams, Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd, Satchi & Satchi Australia and Singapore Stylemart Sydney. The defendants were the Local Court and Sheriff at Parramatta, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta, and NAB. 103The application sought an appeal "as of right" against the decisions of 10 November 2010, 25 September 2010 and 22 February 2011. The appeal grounds alleged the mortgage was invalid and unenforceable, and that the decisions of McCallum J, James J and Hall J contained errors of law and fact. The orders sought possession of the property returned to the appellants, the mortgage to be set aside, all orders set aside and claims for payments from the respondents ranging up to $10 million. 104In dismissing the amended notice of appeal on 18 April 2011, Handley AJA said: "You don't have an appeal as of right from the orders of Justice James and Justice Hall and you can't appeal in advance of an order that has not yet been made. I can't amend this notice of appeal to pick up Justice McCallum's decision and, in any event, you need leave to appeal from her decision. I am starting to waste time now ... Parliament has said you need leave to appeal. I can't change the rules made by Parliament, and all these proceedings are incompetent." 105On 2 May 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Court of Appeal, naming all three Satchithananthams as applicants, in addition to Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd, Satchi & Satchi Australia, Singapore Stylemart Sydney and Stylemart Satchi Australia. The three respondents were the Local Court & Sheriff at Parramatta, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta and NAB. In addition, two proposed respondents were named as the Registrar-General, Land and Property Management Authority and Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia (ITSA) who Mr Satchithanantham sought leave to add as respondents. 106The notice of motion sought orders to review, vary or set aside the decision of Handley AJA on 18 April 2011 due to alleged "errors of law", have the amended Notice of Appeal filed on 4 April 2011 be heard, or in the alternative make the orders sought in the amended Notice of Motion dated 18 February 2011 dismissed by McCallum J on 22 February 2011. The notice of motion indicated that the applicants "rely on all of the documents, transcripts, judgments and orders made in the respective courts involved in the court below from 25.9.10, as to appeal from, and on going, until further determination of this appeal". 107The Registrar made directions for the matter to be reviewed by the full bench of the Court of Appeal. The application was dismissed with costs by the Court of Appeal on 2 August 2011. Hodgson JA (Whealy JA and Sackville AJA agreeing) said that Handley AJA was "clearly" not in error dismissing the appeal as incompetent, because interlocutory judgments require leave to appeal (Satchithanantham v Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported). 108In between the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, and the hearing of the application by the Court of Appeal on 2 August 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a Notice of Motion challenging the decision of the Registrar, in a way which is quite unclear, and seeking directions from the Court of Appeal. 109On 25 July 2011, Hodgson JA dismissed the Notice of Motion. He said: "2 The 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. ... 6 The 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." 110I am satisfied that each of the applications referred to in this group from [79] to [108] were vexatious proceedings within the meaning of that term in the VP Act. That is because none of the proceedings had a reasonable ground to support the orders being sought. As was clear from the judgment of McClellan CJ at CL of 29 April 2010: see [80], all available legal remedies had been exhausted. Yet, the applications kept being filed, and when unsuccessful, made the subject of an appeal and applications for review. 111The number of these applications, the absence of any proper basis for them, and the repetitious nature of them, including the short periods, of only a few days, between the filing of them, lead me to conclude that those proceedings were being conducted in a way so as to harass the NAB, and other respondents, to cause delay to the NAB, in enforcing its orders, and to cause detriment by way of unrecoverable costs and expense to the NAB and other respondents. 112Since, as it appears from the judgment of Hodgson JA at [109], Mr Satchithanantham was then a bankrupt, and he was proceeding without the leave of his trustee in bankruptcy, the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process, when taken in addition to the other features to which I have referred, is inevitable.

[8]

Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Proceedings 113Twelve vexatious proceedings were brought in the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal. 114On 25 May 2010, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham filed an application in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The application filed after the decision of McCallum J in the principal proceedings, sought orders to discharge the mortgage over the property, stay the eviction order and continue the alleged lease of the property. In other words, orders were claimed which sought collaterally in a tribunal which had no jurisdiction, to attack the judgment of McCallum J. 115The proceedings were dismissed on 25 October 2010. In doing so, Senior Member G J Durie stated "the basis of the application is very difficult to decipher", concluded Mr Satchithanantham had no standing to bring the application and was satisfied "the application made by Ms Satchithanantham is a matter already determined by the decision of McCallum J. Even without the provisions of the Tribunal Act s.22 (7), the matters are res judicata between the parties and cannot now be brought before the Tribunal. The present application is vexatious and lacking in substance; further, it is an abuse of process" (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCTTT 494). 116Mr Satchithanantham filed a further application on 26 November 2010, in his and Mrs Satchithanantham's name, seeking a rehearing of their original application in the CTTT. The application was refused on or about 30 November 2010, by the CTTT. Although no court records were tendered about this application, I accept the evidence of Ms Pike in her affidavit of 6 July 2011, that this is what happened. 117On 14 December 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed an application in his and Mrs Satchithanantham's name, seeking a further rehearing of his original application. On 17 December 2010, the application was refused as misconceived and could not succeed "for a number of reasons". The reasons included that the amount of money claimed exceeded the $30,000 cap in the CTTT for a party to be eligible for a rehearing, rehearing provisions were not the correct avenue to challenge a decision on the basis of an alleged error of law, and "[w]here a rehearing application has been refused, the Chairperson can consider a further rehearing application in very limited circumstances ... [and the] applicant has not pointed to any significant new evidence that has arisen since the first rehearing application was refused." 118On 14 January 2011, Mrs Satchithanantham filed a summons commencing an appeal in the District Court of NSW. The named defendants included NAB, the chairperson of the CTTT and the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT. On 14 March 2011, Mrs Satchithanantham was ordered by the judicial registrar to file and serve a notice of motion within 7 days for leave to file an amended summons, which Mr Satchithanantham sought to file. On that same day, Mr Satchithanantham filed, without leave, the amended summons adding Mr Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as plaintiffs. The amended summons also annexed a letter signed by Mrs Satchithanantham purporting to give Mr Satchithanantham authority to sign on her behalf in the legal proceedings and represent her. 119The amended summons sought to appeal the CTTT decisions of 25 October 2010, 30 November 2010 and 17 December 2010. The orders also sought possession of the property and damages. The grounds relied upon alleged "gross misconduct, ignorance [and] collusion" of all respondents. On 8 April 2011, Judicial Registrar Smith noted the lack of leave to file the amended summons, and removed Mr Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. The proceedings were then dismissed on the basis of r 12.11 and r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. 120On 6 May 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the District Court, naming himself, Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as plaintiffs. The defendants again were named as NAB, the chairperson of the CTT and the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT. The notice of motion sought to set aside the orders made of Judicial Registrar Smith of 8 April 2011. The grounds included allegations of duress and ill treatment towards the applicants on 8 April 2011, and misleading conduct on the part of the respondents. On 18 July 2011, Truss J dismissed the application. 121Whilst the proceedings in the District Court were being dealt with, and before they were finalised, on 14 January 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a summons commencing an appeal from the decisions of the CTTT in the Supreme Court. He named himself, Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi as plaintiffs, and NAB, the chairperson of the CTTT and the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT as defendants. He sought review and setting aside of the orders of 25 October 2010, 30 November 2010 and 17 December 2010. The grounds canvassed allegations of procedural unfairness, denial of natural justice and misconduct by NAB. 122On 25 March 2011, in the appeal proceedings from the CTTT, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion in the Supreme Court, naming himself, Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi as plaintiffs. The defendants were NAB, the chairperson of the CTT, the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT, ITSA, Solutions in Property Pty Ltd and the Registrar-General of the Land and Property Management Authority as respondents. The notice of motion sought orders extending the operation of the caveat registered number AF886700, reinstatement of various caveats, possession of the property, removal of the mortgages over the property, orders restraining the "alleged power of sale", and that NAB is "restrained from issuing lapsing notices to the public". 123Brereton J heard and dismissed that part of the motion seeking an extension of a caveat on 28 March 2011 (Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWSC 402). Evidence established that the caveat had already lapsed. However, Brereton J heard arguments on the operation of the caveat. Mr Satchithanantham claimed that "his trustee in bankruptcy was not entitled to transfer his former interest in the property to his wife, and that the mortgage to the National Australia Bank is invalidated by the circumstance that he was a joint owner of the property". 124In refusing the application with costs, Brereton J noted that applicant was not a registered proprietor of the land when the mortgage was given to the bank and there "was nothing to indicate that the bank was in any way on notice of any relevant claim by him to an interest. Indeed, there was a strong inference to the contrary, since at the time he was an undischarged bankrupt and it was for that very reason that the property was transferred to his wife". 125Mr Satchithanantham then sought to persuade the Court to make the orders sought in the notice of motion filed 25 March 2011 on three further occasions. 126On 16 May 2011, the notice of motion was dismissed by Bergin CJ as there "was no serious issue to be tried in respect of that matter [and] even if that were wrong ... the balance of convenience favoured the refusal of the relief". 127On 29 June 2011, Mr Satchithanantham faxed an application seeking an urgent listing before Bergin CL in Eq, of the same application put on behalf of Mrs Satchithanantham. The application was dismissed, stating that "[t]hese are matters with which I dealt on 16 May 2011" or were otherwise unsustainable. 128On 31 October 2011, Nicholas J dismissed an application by Mr Satchithanantham seeking to ventilate most of the claims of relief sought in the notice of motion filed on 25 March 2011. His Honour stated "I am satisfied that [Bergin CJ in Eq]'s ruling effectively dismissed the claims in the notice of motion and that there is nothing further to be done in first instance in relation to it". 129On 16 November 2011, the original summons commencing the proceedings came before Sackar J. Mr Satchithanantham appeared and after an exchange with Sackar J, indicated he no longer wished to press the original summons and it was dismissed. Mr Satchithanantham then sought leave to rely upon amended summons dated 14 November 2011 and a notice of motion of the same date. In refusing leave to file and proceed upon the amended summons, his Honour said: "The proposed amended summons commencing the appeal seems to me to seek yet again to re-agitate a whole series of factual issues concerning the conduct of the National Australia Bank not only in respect of the relevant loan but in respect of alleged misconduct of its legal representatives at various points in time in connection with the process proposed. The process does appear to me to involve a complete re-agitation of many, if not all, of the issues which have been before this Court and various Judges of this Court, on numerous previous occasions. I do not consider it appropriate to grant leave to proceed with the amended summons. I consider do to so would amount to an abuse of process. Equally I also consider it would amount to an abuse of process to permit the joinder of the other parties referred to in the documents." 130On 14 December 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of intention to appeal the decisions of Sackar J, Brereton J and Bergin CJ in Eq. The document was signed only by Mr Satchithanantham, but also named Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia as appellants. The names respondents included NAB, the chairperson of the CTTT, the Parramatta Registry of the CTTT, the Registrar-General of the Land and Property Management Authority, ITSA, Solutions in Properties Pty Ltd and Mr Seetharamaiah Nagendra and Mrs Anusuyu Nagendra. This Notice of Intention to Appeal has not been followed by any notice of appeal being filed, or any further proceedings in relation to it. 131The proceedings in the CTTT were hopelessly flawed and constituted an attempt to collaterally attack the judgment of McCallum J in the principal proceedings, and also attempted to circumvent the orders in those proceedings which refused to join Mrs Satchithanantham as a party in those proceedings. This was made plain to Mr Satchithanantham by Senior Member Durie on 25 October 2010. Seemingly, no attention was paid to this, or indeed anything said by various of the judges of the Equity Division of the Court. 132All of these proceedings in the CTTT, the District Court and the Supreme Court were vexatious proceedings within the meaning of s 6 of the VP Act. They were all an abuse of process, and were all instituted and pursued without any reasonable ground.

[10]

S Thambiappah and T Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd - Supreme Court - Proceedings 2007/257766 133On 19 November 2007, Mr Satchithanantham commenced proceedings, together with his sister Sivamani Thambiappah, concerning a loan agreement between Sivamani Thambiappah and Manonmany Gurarethnam. The loan agreement involved NAB advancing $153,000 to Sivamani Thambiappah and Manonmany Gurarethnam to purchase a property at Park Avenue, Kingswood, which loan was secured by a mortgage over that property. The statement of claim pleaded that Mr Satchithanantham was the 100% equity owner of the property at Kingswood. In 2006, Miss Gurarethnam became bankrupt. 134NAB filed a notice of motion on 4 February 2008, seeking that the proceedings be dismissed or alternatively that the statement of claim be struck out. On 16 April 2008, Macready AsJ dismissed Mr Satchithanantham's proceedings, and struck out the statement of claim. His Honour said: "This is a Statement of Claim where it is so confusing, disjointed, unsupported by material facts and difficult to understand that it should not be allowed to stand. It is not possible to allow part of it and certainly in its present form it should be struck out ... In respect of the second plaintiff's claim it all depends upon his allegation of being an equity owner. There is no hint of how that ownership may prevent the Bank from asserting its rights as a registered first mortgagee. Accordingly, in my view, as against the second plaintiff, Mr Satchithanantham, the proceedings should be dismissed". 135On 26 September 2008, White J dismissed a notice of motion filed by Mr Satchithanantham and Ms Thambiappah appealing against the orders of Macready AsJ and seeking summary judgment against NAB (Satchithanantham v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097). White J agreed with Macready AsJ's assessment of the pleadings, and also agreed with his Honour: "that the [Mr Satchithanantham] had no claim against the defendant. I would add that the basis of his asserted claim, namely the beneficial ownership of the property, is contradicted by his own evidence that when the property and his alleged beneficial ownership was acquired, he was an undischarged bankrupt. Such beneficial ownership, if it existed, did not vest in him but in his trustee in bankruptcy. So far as appears from the pleading that is where it remains. 136I would conclude that this proceeding, including the motion heard by White J, was a vexatious proceeding because it was instituted and conducted without any reasonable ground.

[11]

T Satchithanantham v NAB and Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers (as it was then known) - Supreme Court Proceedings 2007/258225 137On 14 December 2007, Mr Satchithanantham filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court, naming NAB and Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers (as it was then known) as defendants. Dibbs Abbott Stillman was the firm of lawyers acting for the NAB. The pleadings made various conspiracy and deceptive conduct allegations about the principal proceedings and applied for summary judgment against both defendants for $1.4 million, as well as orders setting aside three mortgages over the Westmead property, including NAB's mortgage. The other mortgagees, who clearly had an interest in the proceedings, were not joined. 138Mr Satchithanantham sought summary judgment against NAB on the basis that it did not file a defence within 28 days of service. NAB had instead filed a notice of motion to strike out the statement of claim and for summary dismissal of the proceedings. Dibbs Abbott Stillman had not entered an appearance, however the use of a business name to sue partners of that firm could not be justified as the firm was registered. The summary judgment motion of Mr Satchithanantham was dismissed with costs on 16 April 2008 by Macready AsJ. 139At the same time, Macready AsJ wholly dismissed the proceedings pursuant to NAB's notice of motion filed 11 January 2008. Macready AsJ cited a lack of evidence on Mr Satchithanantham's part, and as he had been warned previously, UCPR 7.22 prevented Mr Satchithanantham from bringing this motion against Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers. 140Macready AsJ said that Mr Satchithanantham had "no standing to complain about [the conduct of NAB] or to complain about the conduct of the other mortgagees against Mrs Satchithanantham". His Honour in dismissing the proceedings, described the statement of claim as a pleading that "completely fails to set out any material facts said to constitute the causes of action ... serious allegations of conspiracy, and deceptive conduct are made without pleading of any material facts which are necessary to see what are the relevant overt acts or the very nature of what is alleged to be the deception." 141On 13 May 2008, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion appealing against the orders of Macready AsJ, seeking to have the orders set aside, summary judgment against the defendants and (presumably in the alternative) leave to file an amended statement of claim. The application was heard by White J on 26 September 2008, the same time as Mr Satchithanantham's other appeal from Macready AsJ (Satchithanantham v National Australi Bank; Thambiappah v National Australia Bank [2008] NSWSC 1097). 142In dismissing the motion White J stated at [60] "[q]uite apart from the plaintiff's failure to plead the material facts said to constitute conspiracy, deception, collusion and the like, the pleading is an abuse of process because it attempts to re-litigate matters which have been decided against the [Mr Satchithanantham] in other proceedings". 143On 23 September 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion against NAB, Ms Emma Jane Hodgman of DibbsBarker Lawyers, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta and the Sheriff's Office of the Local Court Parramatta. The notice of motion also named Mrs Satchithanantham and their son Bramooth Satchithanantham as parties, and sought to prevent the sale of the Westmead property scheduled to take place on 25 September 2010. 144Rein J dismissed the motion on 24 September 2010. He said at [10]-[11] and [16]: "10. It would appear that Mr Satchithanantham is attempting to subvert the orders made by James J [in the 2005 proceedings precluding Mr Satchithanantham from bringing any proceedings or filing or serving any notice of motion without leave of a Judge] by bringing this Motion in the 2007 proceedings rather than the 2005 proceedings, which pursuant to James J's orders he cannot do without leave and which leave he has not obtained. 11. Further, Mr Satchithanantham is still a bankrupt and therefore has no right to bring or take steps in these proceedings in relation to the property, even if he is otherwise might have (a matter which, as I have noted, has now been determined adversely to Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham) ... ... 16. In all the circumstances, there is no proper basis for the Motion to have been brought, given that any rights that might have been held have been dealt with and have been the subject of adverse determinations to Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham (and their son) and given that the 2007 proceedings have long since been concluded. There can be no reason why the Bank should not be able to proceed with its rights to exercise its power of sale under the mortgage and sell the property at auction tomorrow." 145On 15 November 2010, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion naming himself, and his wife and son as applicants. The respondents were NAB and Ms "Jane Hodgeman", NAB's solicitor. The notice of motion was heard ex parte before White J. Orders were sought extending the operation of two caveats due to lapse that day, and an order restraining completion of the sale of the property by NAB. Mr Satchithanantham was refused leave to appear for his wife and son. 146White J dismissed the notice of motion, noting Rein J's previous refusal of the same application, and further noted that the other grounds advanced in the motion "are without substance ... There has been no material change of circumstances between the date of His Honour's judgment and today. It is an abuse of process to make repeated applications for interlocutory relief where there has been no material change of circumstances and where there is no fresh evidence available at the second hearing, which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been available at the first." Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWSC 1338. 147On 14 February 2011, Mr Satchithanantham brought an appeal in which Bramooth Satchithanantham, Mrs Satchithanantham, Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd and Sivamani Thambiappah were also named as applicants. The respondents to the notice of appeal were NAB, Emma Jane Hodgman, Ray White Real Estate Parramatta, Local Court & Sheriff Parramatta, King Mortgages Pty Ltd, Cash King Pty Ltd, Mrs Anusuya Nagendra and Mr Nagendra Seetaramiah and ITSA. The notice of appeal sought orders appealing from the decisions of Rein J of 24 September 2010 and White J of 15 November 2010. The grounds centred on allegations of errors of law by their Honours, and submissions that "all of the respondent[s] have been involved in deceptive and unconscionable dealings with each other and engaged in fraudulent activities by using various courts as vehicle for "fraud engine" and public money, in particular using NAB money for such conspiracy, as pleaded by the first appellant in the court below". 148The orders sought that various judgments against the applicants to be set aside, mortgages over the property to be set aside, contract of sale for the property be set aside and $7.5M for losses and damages. An amended notice of appeal was filed on 17 May 2011, increasing this figure to $10 million. It otherwise was in similar terms to the original form, however the respondent Ray White Real Estate Parramatta was changed to the Registrar General, Land and Property Management Authority. 149On 18 May 2011, Registrar Rizynczok made orders discontinuing the proceedings. On that day the Registrar noted a letter from Mr Satchithanantham's trustee in bankruptcy, abandoning actions being dealt with by him. The Registrar then treated the appeal as discontinued as Mr Satchithanantham did not have leave to appear for the other appellants. 150On 15 June 2011, Mr Satchithanantham, notwithstanding that he was a bankrupt, filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal from the orders of Registrar Riznyczok made on 18 May 2011. The named appellants also included Mr Satchithanantham, Bramooth Satchithanantham, Satchi & Satchi Australia and Sivamani Thambiappah. The named respondents were NAB, Emma Jane Hodgman, the Registrar-General LPMA, Local Court & Sheriff Parramatta, King Mortgages Pty Ltd, Cash King Pty Ltd, ITSA and Mrs Anusuya Nagendra and Mr Nagendra Seetaramiah. 151The orders sought included an investigation into the duty and conduct of Registrar Riznyczok's role and his conduct, and, alternatively, that the Supreme Court and Registrar Riznyczok jointly and severally pay the appellants $15 million for attempting to pervert the course of justice and enforcing procedural blocks against the appellants, in particular via legal representation issues. The seven pages of grounds elaborated with allegations of errors of law regarding bankruptcy and procedural law, missing files and alleged extravagantly "destroying the administration of justice, as to the conduct of unseen corruptions behind the [scene], a to the face of many of the judgments [over 150 judgments] delivered in the past which were tailored made to protected the opponent parties to protect the court's officers below by hiding the merits part of the appellants case through out since 2004 and on going, in abusing the judicial powers, against the public interests AND against it's own merits by preventing & perverting the justice". (sic) 152Hodgson JA dismissed the notice of motion on 25 July 2011 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWCA 213). His Honour noted "it seems clear 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. Since that time there have been many applications made by the applicant seeking to overturn, or go behind, that decision ... The 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." 153The proceedings described in [137] to [151] above, were clearly an abuse of process. There are a number of reasons for this: (a)Mr Satchithanantham had no standing to bring any of the proceedings because he had no proper interest, and as well was an undischarged bankrupt; (b)the grounds asserted were not a rational, let alone, reasonable basis to advance any of the causes of action said to give rise to the relief claimed; (c)the repetition in the later proceedings of failed allegations in the earlier proceedings, amounts to entirely justifiable allegations; (d)the terms of the claims were extravagant and wholly unsupported by any material let alone admissible evidence. 154I also agree with the judgments of White J, Rein J and Hodgson JA, that each of the proceedings with which they were dealing amounted to an abuse of process. 155For these reasons, I am satisfied that these proceedings constituted vexatious proceedings as that term is defined in s 6 of the VP Act.

[12]

Bankruptcy Proceedings 156On 15 April 2008, NAB issued a bankruptcy notice against Mr Satchithanantham for the sum of $10,000, pursuant to the costs order made by James J on 12 December 2007 in the principal proceedings (see paragraph [70] above). 157NAB relies upon all eight unsuccessful proceedings in the bankruptcy jurisdiction, including appeals and applications for leave to appeal commenced by Mr Satchithanantham in the Federal Court, the Federal Magistrate's Court and the High Court following the issue of the bankruptcy notice. An outline of each of those proceedings is appropriate. 158The first proceeding was an application filed on 4 June 2008 by Mr Satchithanantham to set aside the bankruptcy notice issued by NAB on 15 April 2008 was dismissed by Smith FM on 1 July 2008 with costs (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2008] FMCA 940). Smith FM did not accept Mr Satchithanantham's submission that the bankruptcy notice did not follow the prescribed form by using a plural reference, when only a single order was attached. Mr Satchithanantham's submission that the order was not a final order, and that the order should have demanded payment of half the costs from his son Bramooth Satchithanantham, were also dismissed as unsound. 159Mr Satchithanantham also sought to challenge the bankruptcy notice on the basis that he had a counter-claim against NAB, relying upon Supreme Court proceedings 2007/257766 and 2007/258225 (see [133] and [137] above). 160Smith FM said at [29] "On the evidence before me, I am unable to detect any merit in either of these proceedings commenced by Mr Satchithanantham. Nor can I detect any merits in any other claim asserted by Mr Satchithanantham against the Bank, whether made in the past, current or anticipated litigation." 161On the same day, 1 July 2008, Mr Satchithanantham sought to call upon three subpoenas issued on 25 June 2008, addressed to Danielle Kuti, Carla Van Mierlo and Jane Pike, to give evidence and produce documents. A contemporaneous file note of Danielle Kuti, an employed solicitor of Dibbs Barker, who was present in Court at the hearing, records that Smith FM set aside the subpoena addressed to Danielle Kuti stating the subpoenas were a waste of the Court's time, NAB's time and costs. The other two subpoenas had apparently not been served so there was no need to set them aside, but they seem to have suffered from the same deficits. I accept the accuracy of Mrs Kuti's filenote. 162An appeal was brought by Mr Satchithanantham against the orders made by Smith FM on 1 July 2008. The grounds of appeal in the amended Notice of Appeal filed on 15 September 2008 were described as 40 paragraphs, many of which "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." Edmonds J stated "[n]one of the grounds of appeal identify any basis for error on the part of his Honour, whether law or fact, and most of them seek to agitate issues arising out of proceedings, one involving the Bank and the appellant's wife in the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a property she owns ... His appeal to this Court has no foundation." 163The appeal was dismissed by Edmonds J on 27 February 2009 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FCA 198), stating "the various attacks by the appellant on the debt underlying the bankruptcy notice are vexatious and frivolous and were correctly dismissed by his Honour" and: "[t]he 'grounds of appeal' [in the amended notice of appeal] are either repetitive of the 'grounds of appeal' in the notice of appeal or, like many of those latter grounds, are incomprehensible. In his oral submissions, the appellant did not take me to any of the grounds in the amended notice of appeal. There were a number of serious, but totally unsubstantiated, allegations that the Bank and its legal representatives had misled various courts and such allegations do find their way into some of the 'grounds of appeal' in the amended notice of appeal. However, they are undeserving of any consideration past the mere mention of them; they are certainly not deserving of any substantive analysis." 164On 23 September 2009, Heydon and Bell JJ refused Mr Satchithanantham's application to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal from various orders, including those made by Edmonds J on 27 February 2009 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 181). Their Honours said at [4]: "Setting aside allegations of fraud against the respondent, which are not made out, and attacks on the conduct of the Supreme Court proceedings, which are not open at this stage, the papers filed by the applicant in support of his application for special leave to appeal identify no ground on which an appeal would have prospects of success if special leave were granted. Two should be noted, however. It is sad that Edmonds J denied the applicant natural justice. This is not made out. And it is said that Edmonds J gave insufficient reasons. That is not so". 165On 11 March 2009, a sequestration order was made by Smith FM, in response to NAB filing a creditor's petition against Mr Satchithanantham based upon non-compliance with the bankruptcy notice (National Australia Bank Limited v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] FMCA 229). In making a sequestration order against the estate of Mr Satchithanantham, Smith FM said: "Although Mr Satchithanantham has not attended today to present submissions in support of his notice of opposition, I have considered all the grounds set out in his notice, including additional contentions which are made in his three affidavits filed in support. In my opinion, none of the contentions made in opposition to the petition have merit. Essentially most of the contentions repeat the arguments which I addressed in relation to the bankruptcy notice, and rejected. All of my reasoning has been left undisturbed by the judgment of Edmonds J (see Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 198). Moreover, as his Honour's judgment notes at [12], Mr Satchithanantham has been unsuccessful in all of his litigation subsequent to my judgment in July 2008. His application for special leave to the High Court against the costs order of James J was refused on 10 December 2008 (see Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2008] HCASL 586). His motion in the Court of Appeal, attempting again to appeal from James J's order, was refused by Campbell JA on 14 July 2008 (see Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2008[NSWCA 168). His appeals against Macready AsJ's judgments, which dismissed his two proceedings against the Bank, were dismissed by White J on 26 September 2008 (see Satchithanantham v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097). The lack of substance in those claims is therefore clearer on the evidence now before me than it was last year. I do not consider that the existence of any of that litigation, or of the claims which Mr Satchithanantham attempted to pursue in them and might attempt in the future to pursue again, provides grounds for me to refuse to make a sequestration order today. ... I am therefore not satisfied that any of the additional evidence put before this court by Mr Satchithanantham in opposition to the petition advances any of his grounds which challenge the debt owed to the Bank. I remain of the opinion that he has not raised any reason for looking behind the judgment upon which the bankruptcy notice and petition are based." 166On 11 May 2009, Stone J dismissed an appeal by Mr Satchithanantham from the sequestration orders made by Smith FM on 11 March 2009 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 501). Mr Satchithanantham brought the appeal in the Federal Court on the grounds that the hearing of the creditor's petition proceeded in his absence, and also mounted a further attack on the validity and correctness of the original costs order of James J. 167In dismissing the appeal, Stone J said: "[a]s I have already indicated, that costs order has been subject to scrutiny at a number of levels, not only by the New South Wales Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia but also by the Federal Magistrate and subsequently by Edmonds J. At the hearing of the creditor's petition it was again considered ... [Mr Satchithanantham] has not raised any substantive issues which would convince me that there would be any purpose or, indeed, any justice in going behind the costs order once more ... none of the material referred to by Mr Satchithanantham today has satisfied me that there was any defence he could have raised in relation to the creditor's petition that was not considered by his Honour." 168On 1 October 2009, the High Court of Australia dismissed an application by Mr Satchithanantham for special leave to appeal the orders of Stone J on 11 March 2009 and the costs orders giving rise to the bankruptcy proceedings (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 201). Gummow and Kiefel JJ said in their judgment at [4]: "The applicant's application to this Court for special leave to appeal is largely directed at the costs order giving rise to the bankruptcy proceedings. That order has been subject to scrutiny at a number of levels including before this Court. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that order. The applicant makes a variety of other complaints about the conduct of the appeal before Stone J. The applicant's written case does not advance reasons to doubt the correctness of the decision of Stone J, and does not advance any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal." 169On 3 April 2009, Mr Satchithanantham filed an application in the Federal Magistrate's Court seeking orders setting aside the bankruptcy notice which supported the sequestration order, and also setting aside the creditor's petition which followed the bankruptcy notice and, seek orders having the effect of annulling the bankruptcy in general. On 16 June 2009, Driver FM dismissed the application with costs (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FMCA 562), saying at [9]: "[h]aving 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." 170On 7 July 2009, Mr Satchithanantham attempted to file a Notice of Appeal in the Federal Court. The proposed notice of appeal sought to challenge the decision of Driver FM made on 16 June 2009. The grounds of appeal sought to be relied upon by Mr Satchithanantham included various allegations against Driver FM, including that the application was dismissed under duress, favours were granted to NAB, apprehended bias, procedural unfairness, and grounds which likened his position "... to that of a football being kicked around on a football ground". 171On 7 July 2009, Deputy Registrar Hannigan declined to accept for filing the document, and notified Mr Satchithanantham by letter of that date. The letter stated: "The document is not accepted for filing pursuant to Order 46 rule 7A(1) of the Federal Court Rules as it is an abuse of process: It is an abuse of process because it is doomed to fail; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378". 172On 30 July 2009, Mr Satchithanantham filed an application for the review of the decision on 7 July 2009 of the Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court. The application was dismissed by Foster J on 14 October 2009 with costs (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 1171). Foster J stated that it is "quite clear" that Driver FM's reasons were accurate, and "[I]n the present case, there is no evidence upon which I could, let alone should, make a finding that the [Deputy Registrar] did not actually and honestly form the opinion which she expressed in her letter to [Mr Satchithanantham] dated 7 July 2009. The terms of the proposed Notice of Appeal itself provide a reasonable basis for the formation of that opinion". 173On 4 November 2009, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of appeal in the Federal Court, from the decision Foster J made on 14 October 2009. The appeal was dismissed by Marshall, Cowdroy and Buchanan JJ on 21 May 2010 (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47). 174Their Honours concluded Mr Satchithanantham's allegation the Registrar had not appeared before the primary judge because NAB were protecting her, was without foundation. Mr Satchithanantham's claim that that he was not a party to proceedings in respect of the costs order was found to be "simply untenable" in the light of the history of the proceedings. 175During the hearing the Full Court found that Mr Satchithanantham: "made it plain that his real objective of the appeal was to have his bankruptcy set aside. [He] maintained that he was not indebted to the NAB despite the judgment of the Supreme Court". 176Their Honours concluded at [35]: "[s]uch issue is not one which is before this court, nor was it the subject of the proceedings before the primary judge. The only issue before the primary judge was whether the appellant was entitled to seek a review of the Registrar's decision. The hearing before the primary judge was not an occasion for the appellant to challenge the judgment already made against him in the Supreme Court nor to challenge the making of the sequestration order. The appellant has already unsuccessfully challenged the bankruptcy notice (before Edmonds J) and the making of the sequestration order (before Stone J)." 177I am satisfied that each of the applications made by Mr Satchithanantham in dealing with the invocation of the bankruptcy jurisdiction by NAB, constituted vexatious proceedings within the meaning of s 6 of the VP Act. 178It is to be remembered that the debt upon which NAB moved, was the sum of $10,000 ordered to be paid, by way of costs, by James J, on 12 December 2007: see [70] above. An appeal against that order was dismissed: see [71] above. There was no doubt that at the time of the issue of the bankruptcy notice, the money was still owing and unpaid. Mr Satchithanantham had no reasonable grounds to resist the bankruptcy proceedings. 179Each of the proceedings brought by Mr Satchithanantham failed to demonstrate any reasonable basis, sought to relitigate earlier decisions, in the bankruptcy jurisdiction, and in light of the comments of Marshall, Cowdroy and Buchanan JJ, set out in [173] above, were being brought for a wrongful purpose, namely, as a collateral attack on the costs order of James J. This was wholly impermissible. 180In reaching my conclusion on these proceedings, I also agree, if I may say with respect, with the conclusions expressed by Edmonds J and Deputy Registrar Hannigan, that the proceedings with which they were concerned were an abuse of process.

[14]

ADT Proceedings 2005/5131 181On 8 February 2005, Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd ("Zeaiter") commenced proceedings in the Local Court at Bankstown against Mrs Satchithanantham for unpaid rent and outgoings regarding retail premises. In September 2005, the proceedings were transferred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT), which on 10 June 2008 ordered her to pay $70,187.78 by way of rent and dismissed her cross-claim (Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham [2008] NSWADT 165). 182During the proceedings, where Mr Satchithanantham represented Mrs Satchithanantham, the ADT found: "the affidavits and written statements prepared by Mr Satchi, his cross-examination of opposing witnesses and his written submissions were, however, very lengthy and repetitive and dealt with a number of irrelevant matters". The ADT could "not discern, in the lengthy, repetitive and often obscure submissions filed on Mrs Satchi's behalf" valid grounds for the appeal, nor any grounds for ruling that that the conduct of Zeaiter was "unconscionable within the meaning of section 62B of the [Retail Leases] Act". 183Costs of these proceedings were dealt with on 2 April 2009, when the ADT ordered immediate payment by Mrs Satchithanantham of Zeaiter's costs thrown away by virtue of the adjournment on 9 August 2006, and that Mrs Satchithanantham pay 80 per cent of the balance of Zeaiter's costs of the proceedings on a party/party basis (Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] NSWADT 70). The ADT accepted that unreasonable conduct of Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham caused Zeaiter to incur an "an enormous amount of costs for what should have been a relatively simple matter", and at [81], the judgment stated it "is at least arguable that [the conduct of the proceedings] fall within a further phrase in the Practice Note [on Costs], namely, 'vexatiously conducting the proceeding' ". 184Thereafter, eleven additional sets of proceedings were brought. Mr Satchithanantham prosecuted these proceedings in his wife's name and apparently on her behalf, or else on behalf of a number of corporate entities.

[21]

ADT Proceedings 2008/5133 200These proceedings in the ADT involved a claim by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham, and Satchi and Satchi Australia Pty Ltd, against Zeaiter in respect of leased premises. Two applications by Mr Satchithanantham for interim relief were made and dismissed on 21 August 2008 and 2 July 2009 (Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings [2009] NSWADT 237). On the latter date, Judicial Member Fox stated: "I have made it clear in the past, and now reiterate that interim applications of this kind should only be made by those who are able to propose an appropriate 'holding situation' which result in the arrears or disputed amounts being put to one side for later decision upon all the evidence ... In the present instance, Mr Satchi made it clear that he had no funds ... It seems to me that Mr Satchi's Application is really for ... a kind of preliminary appraisal of his primary Affidavit in the hope that the consideration will give rise to some temporary Orders which would almost mirror Orders which he would the Tribunal to make if he were completely successful in the ultimate contest (when the evidence would have been fully tested). Whilst I can conceive of situations where, on appropriate independent evidence being brought, such a step might be contemplated (and I stress that that situation has not arisen here because I have been given no evidence), it would certainly be of no utility now, when the final hearing of the matter is to take place within 2 or 3 weeks." 201On 23 September 2010, the entire proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs (Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 316). Judicial Member Molloy stated: "It is my clear view that the Amended Application 5 March 2010 was not a document, even with its subsequent amendments that could validly go forward to a hearing. In addition, neither the original Application nor the Amended Application was supported by any probative sworn material. The Applicants seem to be of the view that they would simply rely upon all the material filed in previous nominated proceedings and, somehow, that was the evidence that was sought to be put before the Tribunal at hearing. With respect, that is a quite hopeless situation ... The bald refusal to supply those Particulars is a clear indication to me that the Applicants did not wish to proceed in accordance with the directions and procedures of this Tribunal ... Finally, it would appear that, even on the Applicants' own case, that the issues sought to be ventilated in the proceedings before me were in fact issues that had been ventilated in previous litigation ... Although the proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution, the proceedings could have been just as easily dismissed as incompetent; alternatively, as an abuse of process; alternatively as vexatious."

[23]

Supreme Court proceedings 2008/289772 203On 7 January 2008, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi and Satchi Australia (now restored to the register) filed a summons in the Supreme Court. On 30 April 2008, the part of the summons which related to an appeal from the decision of the ADT of 18 December 2007 (Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWADTAP 74, see [188] above) was heard before Hoeben J. The grounds of appeal alleged denial of natural justice, miscarriage of justice, that the Appeal Panel reached its decision upon a false factual basis, that is had provided inadequate reasons for its decision and that it ignored submission put on behalf of Mrs Satchithanantham. 204On 28 April 2008, Mr Satchithanantham filed a motion seeking to have the hearing date vacated, alleging the proceedings should properly be commenced in the Court of Appeal, that he had not understood the significance of the Registrar fixing the matter for hearing on 30 April 2008 and that he was simply not ready. On 9 May 2008, Hoeben J refused to grant an adjournment, stating at [32] in Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 411: "Those considerations do not apply here. The defendant has now been required to meet the same claim on three occasions - before Ms Higgins, before the Appeal Panel of the ADT and now before this court. It should not be required to expend further costs on yet a fourth occasion. Moreover, these proceedings which have been brought by the second plaintiff are misconceived and without merit and the matter should be finalised without further waste of costs and of the court's time." 205Hoeben J noted that neither Satchi and Satchi Australia nor Mr Satchithanantham had any standing in relation to this appeal, which only lay with Mrs Satchithanantham who commenced the original proceedings and subsequent ADT appeal. Hoeben J rejected all of the submissions of the appellants and dismissed so much of the summons that related to the ADT appeal, with costs on. 206Hoeben J dismissed the outstanding part of the motion on 30 July 2008, regarding the occupation of the premises, given the failure to comply with an undertaking made to the Court on 4 February 2008 when the relevant consent order was made.

[24]

Supreme Court proceedings 2008/289772 207On 25 June 2010, I heard two notices of motion, the first dated 20 April 2010 and the second described as an amended notice of motion dated 21 May 2010 (Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 715). Both of the notices of motion were brought by Mrs Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd, who at the hearing were represented by Mr Satchithanantham. The relief sought by the applicants was summary judgment on all outstanding claims, including possession of the retail premises to be restored to the applicants from which they were evicted in 2004 and 2008, the interruption of the eviction of Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham from their Westmead property at the request of NAB, and the payment of at least $7 million in damages. 208In dismissing the notices of motion with costs, I held that "as a consequence of the judgments of Hoeben J some of the relief sought in the summons had already been disposed of by the court". I further stated "I am wholly unpersuaded this is a suitable matter for summary judgment" because of inadequate evidence, lack of clarity of issues of fact or law relevant to a summary judgment application, much of the relief claimed was outside the terms of the orders or properly belonged to the Court of Appeal, and consequences of the orders, if granted, would affect parties outside the proceedings. 209I also ordered that any application by the plaintiffs for the joinder of any additional parties be made by motion with supporting affidavit to be filed and served by 20 August 2010 and made returnable on 17 September 2010, the adjourned date for further directions. No such motion was ever filed. On 17 September 2010, the plaintiffs sought to persuade me to vacate the orders which I made on 25 June 2010. I refused. 210On 17 December 2010, a statement of claim was filed in the 08/289722 proceedings in the Supreme Court, which joined NAB, ITSA and Anthony Zeaiter as defendants. The named plaintiffs were Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham, Bramooth Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd. The relief sought against NAB included the discharge of the mortgage and a largely unparticularised and incomprehensible claim for liquidated damages, and a stay of the sequestration order made against Mr Satchithanantham in the bankruptcy proceedings. On 13 January 2011, NAB filed a notice of motion seeking it be struck out as an abuse of process. 211On 30 March 2011, Fullerton J dismissed the statement of claim as being an abuse of process in so far as it sought relief against the National Australia Bank. Her Honour stated: "that the plaintiff's conduct in bringing further proceedings against the Bank is a deliberate attempt to subvert the orders of the Court of Appeal and a blatant breach of the orders of Garling J" (Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWSC, 30 March 2011, unreported). 212Her Honour also ordered that the "plaintiffs (or any of them) be restrained from bringing any proceedings in this Court against the National Australia Bank, seeking by the service of any process to require the appearance of the National Australia Bank in this Court or to require that any action be taken by the National Australia Bank in connection with any proceedings in this Court without the leave of a judge of this Court which leave is to be sought by written application setting out the full basis of which leave is sought and the full basis for the claim for relief with a coy of the proposed notice of motion". 213On 11 May 2011, Mr Satchithanantham filed a notice of motion seeking a stay of Fullerton J's orders of 30 March 2011 and seeking default judgment to be entered against NAB. Registrar Walton dismissed the motion on 25 May 2011. Mr Satchithanantham then went before the Duty Judge, who refused to hear the matter. 214On 14 July 2011, pursuant to a notice of motion filed by NAB on 6 July 2011, Schmidt J made orders pursuant to s 74MA(2)(b) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), restraining Mr Satchithanantham from lodging any caveat in respect of the Westmead property, either in his name or Mrs Satchithanantham's, Bramooth Satchithanantham's or Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd's name. 215On the same date, Schmidt J gave Mr Satchithanantham leave to file a notice of motion. The notice of motion was signed by Mr Satchithanantham, and named himself, Mrs Satchithanantham, Bramooth Satchithanantham and Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd as applicants. The named defendants were NAB, Zeaiter, Anthony Zeaiter, ITSA and the Registrar-General of the LPMA. The orders sought the notice of motion filed on 6 July 2011 by NAB be set aside, various orders be dealt with in the applicants' notice of motion filed 11 May 2011, and all orders in proceedings 05/15259 from 2006 be stayed or set aside. 216On 18 August 2011, Harrison AsJ dismissed the statement of claim in proceedings 2008/289772 (Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 892). 217On 9 November 2011, the matter was listed before Registrar Bradford, following an application from Mr Satchithanantham for relisting. The matter was referred to Harrison AsJ, who stated there was nothing further to be addressed in these proceedings. 218These proceedings which commenced in the ADT and which also involved proceedings in the Supreme Court, which I have outlined at [181] to [217] above, involved, either as a whole, or in part, features which justify the conclusion that they were vexatious proceedings in accordance with s 6 of the VP Act. Proceedings were repetitive, in the sense that where a proceeding was dismissed, Mr Satchithanantham would file another, similar, proceeding; proceedings were conducted by, or on behalf of Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd whilst it was deregistered, and therefore did not exist; the grounds upon which relief was sought were unreasonable and without merit, and in at least one proceeding, as found by Fullerton J, Mr Satchithanantham had a wrongful purpose, namely, to subvert orders of the Court of Appeal. 219I am satisfied that these proceedings are a further basis for an order under s 8 of the VP Act.

[36]

Reflection on the litigation 255This review of the litigation is conveniently summarised in a Schedule attached to this judgment. The Schedule contains a number of abbreviations of the names of Mr and Mr Satchithanantham. These abbreviations have been necessary in order to accommodate the formatting in the information. No disrespect is intended. 256Although not all of the litigation referred to in this judgment was addressed by the evidence adduced by the NAB, Mr Satchithanantham, in the course of the hearing of NAB's application, tendered all files of litigation in which he was involved. Although he was not in possession of this material, he submitted that the Court should look at all documents which he had filed in proceedings in which he was involved. I have acted upon this submission. 257The review of the litigation demonstrates that Mr Satchithanantham has brought proceedings on many, many occasions which were, and have been found, to be an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings have been brought and pursued without any proper or reasonable ground. The proceedings certainly have caused harassment, annoyance and detriment by way of the incurring of costs to the NAB and other parties involved in the litigation. 258A simple recital of the proceedings, and a reading of the pleadings and judgments, abundantly demonstrates these conclusions. 259Whilst I have listed and reviewed all of the litigation in which Mr Satchithanantham has been involved, I am content to rest the orders which I will make entirely on the content of and the proceedings instituted by Mr Satchithanantham against the NAB in this Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court of Australia together with the proceedings in the bankruptcy jurisdiction. 260I am, for the reasons expressed in the course of this judgment, satisfied that both Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham have, in the proceedings referred to in [258], frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia, and that appropriate orders ought to be made which have the effect of preventing Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham behaving in a similar way in the future. 261Orders under the VP Act, are in my view necessary, because on a large number of occasions, Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham have shown themselves to be quite unable to: (a)institute proceedings which are properly based; (b)conduct proceedings by putting submissions which are rational, and relate to a proper legal basis for relief; (c)pay any heed to the contents of any judgment which calls attention to, or else highlights deficiencies in their proceedings; and (d)restrain themselves from instituting and conducting proceedings which are an abuse of process. 262Having regard to these matters, and the public interest, although not an order lightly made, I am well satisfied this order should be made.

[38]

SCHEDULE TO JUDGMENT NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK v SATCHITHANANTHAM [2012] NSWSC 959 Principal proceedings - McCallum J Date Application / Judgment 10.11.05 - 08.09.06 NOM 13.09.06 Decision 06.02.09 & 03.03.09 12.02.09 NOM 03.04.09 NOA 07.04.09 Decision 07.04.09 NOM 18.05.09 Decision 02.09.09 30.09.09 23.04.10 Joinder applications Date Application / Judgment 02.12.05 NOM 11.09.06 05.01.07 Summons 23.05.07 15.06.07 NOM 25.06.07 Decision 26.07.07 NOM 24.09.07 Decision 19.10.07 NOM 26.11.07 NOM 12.12.07 Decision 12.12.07 Summons 08.04.08 NOM 14.04.08 Decision 14.05.08 29.05.08 NOM 16.06.08 Decision 25.06.08 NOM 14.07.08 N/A 10.12.08 Further attempts by Mr S and/or Mrs S to stay the final order of McCallum J of 03.03.09 Date Application / Judgment 14.05.09 NOM 01.07.09 Decision (Mrs Satchi elected not to move on 14.05.09 NOM). 25.05.09 NOM 15.06.09 Decision 11.09.09 NOM 27.10.09 Decision 06.11.09 NOM 04.12.09 18.03.10 NOM 23.03.10 Decision Applications after the dismissal of the HC special leave application (23.04.10) Date Application / Judgment 27.04.10 NOM 29.04.10 Decision 30.04.10 NOM 19.05.10 Decision 19.05.10 NOM 24.05.10 25.05.10 Decision 26.05.10 NOM 26.05.10 Decision 07.06.10 NOM 24.06.10 NOM 29.06.10 - 06.08.10 NOM 13.09.10 25.09.10 NOM 25.09.10 Decision 28.09.10 27.09.10 NOM 18.10.10 Decision 03.11.10 NOM 10.11.10 Decision 23.12.10 NOM 04.01.11 Amended NOM 09.02.11 NOA 21.02.11 Decision 22.02.11 Decision 04.04.11 Amended NOA 18.04.11 Decision 02.05.11 NOM 02.08.11 CTTT Proceedings (Twelve) Date Application / Judgment 25.05.10 App 25.10.10 26.11.10 App 30.11.10 Decision 14.12.10 App 17.12.10 Decision 14.01.11 Summons 14.03.11 Decision 14.03.11 Amended summons 08.04.11 Decision 06.05.11 NOM 18.07.11 Decision 14.01.11 Summons 25.03.11 NOM 28.03.11 16.05.11 Decision 29.06.11 Decision 31.10.11 Decision 16.11.11 Decision 14.12.11 Other proceedings - Satchi & Thambiappah v NAB 2007/5597 Date Application / Judgment 19.11.07 SOC 04.02.08 - 16.04.08 Decision N/A NOM 26.09.08 Other proceedings - Satchi v NAB & Dibbs Abbott Stillman Lawyers 2007/6031 Date Application / Judgment 14.12.07 SOC 11.01.08 - 16.04.08 Decision 13.05.08 NOM 26.09.08 23.09.10 NOM 24.09.10 Decision 15.11.10 NOM 15.11.10 14.02.11 NOA 17.05.11 Amended NOA 18.05.11 Decision 15.06.11 NOM 25.07.11 Other proceedings - Bankruptcy Date Application / Judgment 15.04.08 - 04.06.08 NOM 01.07.08 21.07.08 NOA 15.09.08 Amended NOA 27.02.09 N/A 23.09.09 15.08.08 - 11.03.09 N/A Appeal 11.05.09 N/A 01.10.09 03.04.09 App 16.06.09 07.07.09 NOA 07.07.09 Decision 30.07.09 App 14.10.09 04.11.09 NOA 21.05.10 Other proceedings - Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd Date Application / Judgment 08.02.05 - Sept 05 - 10.06.08 02.04.09 Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - NAB sought: Possession of property which Mrs Satchi had mortgaged to NAB. - Sought: NAB's SOC be dismissed. SC Sully J Heard 08.09.06 NOM. Dismissed Decision - NAB v Satchi [2009] NSWSC 21 SC McCallum J Heard 10.11.05 NOM. NAB gained possession / Principal amount reduced (partially successful) - - Sought: stay of final orders. - - - Sought: appeal orders of McCallum J (03.03.09). - SC McCallum J Heard 12.02.09 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: stay of orders and appeal proceedings be listed for expedition. - CA Ipp JA Heard 07.04.09 NOM. Stayed final orders until the CA judgment on 01.07.09 Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] NSWCA 268 CA Giles, Hodgson & Young JA Heard 03.04.09 NOA. Dismissed appeal but writ stayed until 01.11.09 App for leave to appeal to HC - - Mrs Satchi applied for special leave to appeal to the HC. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] HCA Trans 101 HC French CJ & Kiefel J Heard 30.09.09 application. Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Sought: Mr Satchi and son be joined as parties. - Decision - NAB v Satchi (NSWSC, 11 September 2006, unreported) SC Sully J Heard 02.12.05 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: leave to appeal order of Sully (11.09.06). - Decision - Satchi v NAB (NSWCA, 23 May 2007, unreported) CA Beazley & Tobias JJA Heard 05.01.07 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: joinder. - SC Reg Bradford Heard 15.06.07 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: set aside orders of Reg Bradford and joinder. - SC Malpass AsJ Heard 26.07.07 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: set aside orders of Malpass AsJ and costs order by Reg Bradford and joinder. - - - NAN sought: restrain Mr and Mrs Satchi. - SC James J Heard 19.10.07 NOM. Dismissed and restrained - - Sought: leave to appeal from orders of James J. - - - Sought: stay of hearing and various other orders. - SC Mason P Heard 08.04.08 NOM. Dismissed Decision - Satchi v NAB (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported) CA Mason P and Handley AJA Heard 12.12.07 summons. Dismissed - - Sought: set aside orders of James J, stay bankruptcy notice and joinder. - SC Reg Schell Heard 29.05.08 NOM Dismissed - - Sought: review orders of the CA on 14.05.08. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2008] NSWCA 168 CA Campbell JA Heard 25.06.08 NOM. Dismissed App for leave to appeal - - Sought: leave to appeal from the orders of the CA on 14.05.08. - Satchi v NAB [2008] HCASL 586 HC Hayne and Crennan JJ Heard app for leave to appeal. Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Sought: stay final orders pending the CA hearing. - CA Hodgson, Giles and Young JJA Heard 14.05.09 NOM Dismissed - - Sought: vary/discharge orders of Ipp JA on 18.05.09 - CA Giles JA Heard 25.05.09 NOM Dismissed - - Sought: stay the orders made by CA on 02.09.09, general stay grounds and relist Mrs Satchi's 14.05.09 NOM. - CA Young JA Heard 11.09.09 NOM. Dismissed but stay until 17.11.09 - - Sought: review orders of Young JA on 27.10.09 and a stay pending application for special leave to the HC. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] NSWCA 395 CA Allsop P, Basten JA & Handley AJA Heard 06.11.09 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: prevent execution of writ of possession and dispute amount owed to NAB. - SC Hoeben J Heard 18.03.10 NOM. Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Sought: prevent execution of writ of possession and dispute amount owed to NAB. - SC McClellan CJ Heard 27.04.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: prevent execution of writ of possession and dispute amount owed to NAB. - SC Hulme J Heard 30.04.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: stay of the writ of possession and orders of McCallum J (03.03.09) be set aside. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWCA 118 CA Hodgson JA Heard 19.05.10 NOM. Dismissed SC Barr J Heard oral app for stay of the writ of possession. Dismissed - - Sought: stay of writ of possession and eviction. - SC Barr J Heard 26.05.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: stay of orders of McCallum J (03.03.09), review orders of Hodgson JA (24.05.10), all orders be set aside. - CA Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA Sought: stay of all orders made since 03.03.09, set aside or review orders of Giles JA (15.06.10) and Campbell JA (14.07.08) and property be returned. - - - NAB sought: restrain Mr and Mrs Satchi from filing any NOM in the CA proceedings without leave of the Ct. - - - Sought: stay of interlocutory and final orders, property be returned and stay of NAB's NOM seeking to restrain Mr Satchi and Mrs Satchi. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWCA 243 CA Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA Heard 07.06.10, 24.06.10 and 06.08.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: Auction (today) be stayed. - SC Hall J Heard 25.09.10 NOM. Dismissed Decision - NAB v Satchi [2010] NSWCA 244 CA Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA Heard NAB's 29.06.10 NOM. NAB successful - - Sought: set aside review orders of Handley AJA, Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA (13.09.10). - SC Reg Riznyczok Heard 27.09.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: re-list 25.09.10 NOM. - SC James J Heard 03.11.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: extend and reinstate caveats, stay orders associated with the sale and the proceedings generally, disputed amount owing and NAB's mortgage be set aside. - - - Additional grounds against LPMA. - - - Sought: appeal against final decision on 25.09.10 and 10.11.10. - SC Reg Bradford Heard 04.01.11 amended NOM. Dismissed SC McCallum J Mrs Satchi sought to re-agitate 04.01.11 amended NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: amend 09.02.11 NOA. Sought possession, mortgage be set aside, all orders set aside and claims for payments ranging up to $10M. - CA Handley AJA Heard 04.04.11 amended NOA Dismissed - - Sought: review/vary/set aside Handley AJA's 18.04.11 decision - Decision - Satchi v Sheriff of NSW (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported) CA Hodgson JA, Whealy JA and Sackville AJA Heard 02.05.11 NOM Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Sought: discharge mortgage, stay eviction order and continue lease - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWCTTT 494 CTTT Snr Mbr Durie Heard 25.05.10 app Dismissed - - Sought: rehear original application - CTTT - Heard 26.11.10 app Dismissed - - Sought: further rehearing of original application - CTTT - Heard 14.12.10 app Dismissed - - Sought: appeal to DC, seeking possession of property and damages. - DC Reg Smith Heard 14.01.11 summons. Incorrect summons, required amended summons - - Amended 14.01.11 summons. Sought to appeal 25.10.10, 30.11.10 and 17.12.10 decisions. - DC Reg Smith Heard 14.03.11 amended summons. Dismissed - - Sought: set aside orders of Reg Smith (08.04.11). - DC Truss J Heard 06.05.11 NOM Dismissed - - Sought: commence appeal to set aside orders of 25.10.10, 30.11.10 and 17.12.10. - - - Sought: extension of caveats, reinstate various caveats, possession of property, removal of mortgages, restrain power of sale and restraint of NAB. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2011] NSWSC 402 SC Brereton J Heard 25.03.11 NOM. Considered the caveat only. Dismissed SC Bergin CJ Heard 25.03.11 NOM. Dismissed SC Bergin CJ Heard 25.03.11 NOM. Dismissed SC Nicholas J Heard 25.03.11 NOM. Dismissed SC Sackar J Heard 14.01.11 summons. Sought leave to file amended summons and NOM. Dismissed Notice of intention to appeal - - Sought: appeal decisions of Bergin CJ, Sackar and Brereton JJ. - Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Mr Satchi commenced proceedings against Gunaretnam. - - - NAB sought: proceedings be dismissed or 19.11.07 SOC be struck out. - SC Macready AsJ Heard 19.11.07 SOC and 04.02.08 NOM: dismissed the proceedings and struck out the SOC. Dismissed - - Sought: appeal Macready AsJ's orders (16.04.08) and summary judgment. - Decision - Satchi v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097 SC White J Heard above NOM. Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Sought: summary judgment against NAB and Dibbs Abott Stillman Lawyers for $1.4M, set aside 3 mortgages. - - - NAB sought: strike out 14.12.07 SOC and summary dismissal. - SC Macready AsJ Heard 14.12.07 SOC and 16.04.08 NOM, dismissed the proceedings and struck out the SOC. Dismissed - - Sought: appeal orders of Macready AsJ (16.04.08), have orders set aside, summary judgment and leave to file amended SOC. - Decision - Satchi v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097 SC White J Heard 13.05.08 NOM. Heard at the same time as other appeal above. Dismissed - - Sought: prevent sale of Westmead property to take place on 25.09.10. - SC Rein J Heard 24.09.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: extend two caveats (due to lapse that day) and restrain completion of sale of property. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] NSWSC 1338 SC White J Heard 15.11.10 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: appeal decision of Rein J (24.09.10) and White J (15.11.10) - judgments be set aside, mortgages be set aside, contract of sale be set aside and $7.5M for loss and damages. - - - Sought: amend 14.02.11 appeal. Increased figure to $10M. - CA Reg Rizynczok Heard the amended NOA. Discontinued the proceedings - - Sought: leave to appeal from decision of Reg Rizynczok - investigate Reg's conduct and Reg/SC pay $15M for perverting the course of justice. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2011] NSWCA 213 CA Hodgson JA Heard 15.06.11 NOM. Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - NAB served a bankruptcy notice pursuant to costs order by James J (12.12.07). - - - Sought: set aside bankruptcy notice. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2008] FMCA 940 FMCA Smith FM Heard 04.06.08 NOM. Dismissed - - Sought: appeal order of Smith FM (01.07.08). - - Amend 21.07.08 NOA. Added more grounds of appeal. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FCA 198 FCA Edmonds J Heard 15.09.08 amended NOA. Dismissed Special leave to appeal to HCA - - Sought: appeal various orders including Edmonds J (27.02.09). - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] HCASL 181 HCA Heydon & Bell JJ Heard above leave to appeal. Refused - - NAB served a creditors petition based on non-compliance with bankruptcy notice. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FMCA 229 FMCA Smith FM Heard above creditors petition. Sequestration order made. Sequestration order - - Appeal sequestration order. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FCA 501 FCA Stone J Heard above appeal. Dismissed Special leave to appeal - - Sought: appeal order of Stone J (11.03.09) and the costs orders. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] HCASL 201 HCA Gummow & Kiefel JJ Heard the above appeal. Dismissed - - Sought: set aside or annul the sequestration order and damages. - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FMCA 562 FCA Driver FM Heard 03.04.09 app. Dismissed - - Sought: appeal orders of Driver FM (16.06.09) - FCA Dep Reg Hannigan Rejected 07.07.09 NOA. Dismissed - - Sought: review decision of Dep Reg Hannigan (07.07.09). - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2009] FCA 1171 FCA Foster J Heard 30.07.09 app for review. Dismissed - - Sought: appeal decision of Foster J (14.10.09) - Decision - Satchi v NAB [2010] FCAFC 47 FCAFC Cowdroy & Buchanan JJ Heard 04.11.09 appeal. Dismissed Heard by Heard before Info Outcome - - Zeaiter commenced proceedings in Bankstown LC for unpaid rent and outgoings. - - - Proceedings transferred to ADT. - Decision - Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchi [2008] NSWADT 165 ADT Ordered Satchi's to pay $70k. - Decision - Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchi [2009] NSWADT 70 ADT Ordered Satchi's to pay 80% of balance of Zeaiter's costs. -

Zeaiter - ADT proceedings 075034 24.02.07 App - - Sought: summary judgment for cross-claim and damages. - 24.05.07 Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWADT, 24 May 2007, unreported) ADT Higgins JM Heard 24.02.07 app. Dismissed
Zeaiter - ADT appeal panel proceedings 079043 27.07.07 NOA - - Sought: appeal orders of Higgins JM (24.05.07). - 18.12.07 Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2007] NSWADTAP 74 ADT Appeal panel Heard 27.07.07 appeal. Dismissed
Zeaiter - ADT proceedings 075031 22.02.07 App - - Sought: urgent relief against removal from the premises. - 18.12.07 Decision ADT Chesterman ADCJ Heard 22.02.07 summons. Struck out summons. Struck out
Zeaiter - ADT appeal panel proceedings 089025 20.03.08 Appeal - - Sought: set aside orders of Chesterman ADCJ (18.12.07). - 24.12.08 Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd and Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 165 ADTAP Appeal panel Heard 20.03.08 appeal. Dismissed

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

National Australia Bank

Respondent/Defendant:

Satchithanantham

Legislation Cited (3)

Corporations Act 2001(Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976(Cth)

Real Property Act 1900(NSW)

Cases Cited (55)

awyers [2011] NSWSC 412 Satchithanantham v King Mortgage Pty Ltd (in liq) [2010] HCASL 61 Satchithanantham v King Mortgages, Cash King Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 358 Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 974 Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1277 Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 914 Satchithanantham v NAB; Thambiappah v NAB [2008] NSWSC 1097 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FCA 198 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] FMCA 562 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2009] NSWCA 395 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] HCA Trans 101 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 118 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCA 243 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWCTTT 494) Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] NSWSC 1338 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWCA 213 Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2011] NSWSC 402 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] NSWCA 168 National Australia Bank Limited v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] FMCA 229 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 14 May 2008, unreported) Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd (NSWCA, 23 May 2007, unreported) Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2008] FMCA 940 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 1171 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 501 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 181 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] HCASL 201 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] NSWCA 268 Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47 Satchithanantham v Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales (NSWCA, 2 August 2011, unreported) Satchithanantham v Steffel [2008] NSWSC 1153 Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2007] NSWADTAP 74 Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2009] NSWADTAP 53 Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 30 Thambiappah Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Limited [2008] HCA SLD 586 Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham [2008] NSWADT 165 Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] NSWADT 70 Texts Cited: Dennis Charles and Robert Stanley Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 7th ed (2011) Lexis Nexis Butterworths Category: Principal judgment Parties: National Australia Bank (P) Thambiappah Satchithanantham (D1) Hemelathasothy Satchithanantham (D2) Representation: Counsel: A Leopold SC / Ms Bearup (P) T Satchithanantham (In person - D1 and D2) Solicitors: Dibbs Barker (P) T Satchithanantham (In person - D1 and D2) File Number(s): 2011/259275

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 26This Act, which I shall refer to as the "VP Act" was introduced to replace s 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The VP Act differed in material respects from the previous provisions. A new test was created. New definitions were included. It is necessary to set out the important and relevant provisions. 27Section 4 defines what the term "proceedings" includes. It is in these terms: "In this Act, proceedings includes: (a) any cause, matter, action, suit, proceedings, trial, complaint or inquiry of any kind within the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal, and (b) any proceedings (including any interlocutory proceedings) taken in connection with or incidental to proceedings pending before a court or tribunal, and (c) any calling into question of a decision, whether or not a final decision, of a court or tribunal, and whether by appeal, challenge, review or in another way." 28Section 5 defines what is meant by the term "institute" when used in relation to proceedings. It is sufficient for me to note, that in relation to civil proceedings, the term includes commencing proceedings, whether final or interlocutory, or the taking of any necessary preparatory step to commence proceedings. 29Section 6 defines what is meant by the phrase "vexatious proceedings". I note that this is an inclusive definition. It is in the following terms: "In this Act, 'vexatious proceedings' includes: (a) proceedings that are an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal, and (b) proceedings instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for another wrongful purpose, and (c) proceedings instituted or pursued without reasonable ground, and (d) proceedings conducted in a way so as to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or achieve another wrongful purpose." 30Proceedings may fall into one or more of the categories set out in s 6. That is because the description in s 6(a) may well be applicable to proceedings which carry the descriptions set out in the other subsections. As well, because s 6(b) requires an assessment of subjective intention, it is entirely possible that, whether or not that subjective intention exists, the proceedings viewed objectively, may fall within s 6(d): see Attorney-General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315 at [33] per Adamson J; Pascoe v Liprini [2011] NSWSC 1484 at [10] per Adamson J. 31Section 8 is the principal operative provision in the VP Act as it applies to these proceedings. It is in the following terms: "(1) An authorised court may make an order under this section (a "vexatious proceedings order") in relation to a person if the court is satisfied that: (a) the person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia, or (b) the person, acting in concert with a person who is subject to a vexatious proceedings order or who is referred to in paragraph (a), has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an authorised court may have regard to: (a) proceedings instituted or conducted in any Australian court or tribunal (including proceedings instituted or conducted before the commencement of this section), and (b) orders made by any Australian court or tribunal (including orders made before the commencement of this section). (3) An authorised court must not make a vexatious proceedings order in relation to a person without hearing the person or giving the person an opportunity of being heard. ... (7) The Supreme Court may make any one or more of the following vexatious proceedings orders in relation to a person: (a) an order staying all or part of any proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by the person, (b) an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings in New South Wales, (c) any other order that the Court considers appropriate in relation to the person." 32Part 3 of the VP Act provides for the consequences of the making of a vexatious proceedings order under s 8. It is unnecessary to set out here the details of this Part.

Vexatious Proceedings - Legal Principles 33It is appropriate to consider the principles which are applicable to applications under the VP Act. In so doing, it is necessary to note that in applying decisions which refer to the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, regard needs to be had to the changed provisions under the VP Act. 34Perram J in the Federal Court of Australia, in dealing with the application of Order 21 of the Federal Court Rules, which was in a form similar to s 84 of the Supreme Court Act, enunciated the applicable principles, in Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No.2) [2009] FCA 398 at [2] ff in this way: "2. A comprehensive explanation of what makes a proceeding vexatious is difficult to proffer for the boundary between the persistent and over-zealous on the one hand, and the vexatious on the other, may at times be indistinct. However, the following principles are, at least, well-established. First, the making of such an order is an extreme remedy depriving its object of recourse to the enforcement of the law which is every citizen's ordinary right. It is, therefore, not lightly to be made. 3. Secondly, the purpose of the order is not to impose condign punishment for past litigious misdeeds; it serves instead to shield both the public, whose individual members might be molested by vexatious proceedings, and the Court itself, whose limited resources and needs must be carefully managed and protected from the expense, burden and inconvenience of baseless and repetitious suits. 4. Thirdly, as might naturally be expected, such a severe power is not enlivened by the mere single occurrence of a vexatious claim. To err is human and transient lapses of judgment, even serious ones, may be found in the most reasonable of places. Instead, the power to make the order is conditional upon the litigant having commenced not only a single vexatious proceeding but also upon having commenced similar such proceedings in this Court or in other Australian courts. 5. Fourthly, the qualities of vexation to which O 21 is addressed are to be found, as the terms of r 1(1) show, in the commencement by the litigant of proceedings which lack reasonable grounds and where the litigant's institution of such proceedings may fairly be said to be both habitual and persistent. 6. Fifthly, whether a proceeding is instituted without reasonable grounds is a different question to, although not wholly disconnected from, the inquiry into a proceeding's legal merits. The wheat, no doubt, must be separated from the chaff but in this area the question is whether what is before the Court contains any wheat at all. Although, often enough, no great guidance is obtained by exchanging one formula of words with another, it will be usually of some assistance, limited perhaps, to ask whether the issues brought to the Court for determination are manifestly hopeless or devoid of merit. It is, in that context, important to distinguish the difficult from the ridiculous and the unlikely from the hopeless. 7. Sixthly, although the ways in which unreasonable grounds may manifest themselves are myriad, one form often to be found in the baggage of the vexatious is a failure, often a refusal, to understand the principles of finality of litigation which rescue court and litigant alike from a Samsara of past forensic encounters. 8. Seventhly, it is the related quality of repetition which underpins, in part, a need for the institution of the proceedings to deserve the appellations habitual and persistent. The litigant's conduct will be habitual where the commencement of proceedings occurs as a matter of course when appropriate conditions for their commencement are present as was explained by Roden J in Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 at 492. That formulation may not wholly explain the litigant who commences proceedings on any occasion and without the presence of any conditions, whether appropriate or otherwise. In such cases, the idea of constant repetition driven by habit and symptomatic of an inability not to engage in the behaviour may be more useful. Persistence, on the other hand, generally suggests stubborn determination but, in the context of the vexatious, carries with it the capacity to endure failure beyond the point at which a rational person would abandon the field. 9. Eighthly, each of these notions - the want of reasonable grounds, habitual institution and persistent institution - are to be gauged objectively. But this does not mean that a litigant's own protestation as to his or her own mental state is irrelevant; frequently enough, the vexatious are betrayed out of their own mouths. Rather, the need for objective determination protects courts from the vexatious litigant who is genuinely, but misguidedly, persuaded as to the correctness of his or her own conduct. 10. Ninthly, the power to make the order arises when proceedings commenced in the way described are found to exist. But the notion of a proceeding is a broad one including a substantive proceeding directed at the attainment of final relief and collateral applications within such a proceeding; further, it extends outside the proceeding itself and embraces appeals therefrom and applications which, whilst not made in the proceeding, are properly to be seen as collateral thereto - so much flows from the definition of proceeding in s 4 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 11. Tenthly, other proceedings commenced before bodies which are not courts, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, are not directly pertinent to the existence of the power but may nevertheless throw light on the vexatious nature of proceedings before the Court; so too, the existence of a body of such administrative litigation may have relevance to the question of whether the Court's power to make the order, once enlivened, should be exercised. 12. Finally, once it is concluded that the Court's power to prevent a litigant from commencing or pursuing proceedings has been enlivened, the considerations germane to the exercise of that power are unconfined. However, the factors which will be relevant are informed by the protective purpose which the order serves. Where a litigant displays insight into their previous litigious history this will, no doubt, be relevant for it will suggest - although not determine - a diminution in the risk posed to the public. On the other hand, the manner in which a litigant conducts herself in her affairs generally is also capable of throwing light on whether the commencement of further vexatious proceedings is likely. Those general affairs include the litigant's defence to the proceedings by which the order restraining him is sought. Because of the protective nature of the jurisdiction it is also relevant to know the extent of the damage and inconvenience the litigant's forays into the courts have caused, pecuniary or otherwise." 35Davies J has summarised the applicable principles in a way with which, if I may say with respect, I entirely agree, in Attorney General v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008 at [9]-[17]. Of these principles, Davies J said in Attorney General v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192, this: "7 I discussed in Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008 at [9]-[17] the principles associated with the making of an order under s 8(1)(a) of the Act. Those matters may be summarised as follows: (a) the test of "frequently" is a less demanding test than was required under s 84 Supreme Court Act 1970; (b) the term "frequently" is a relative term and must be looked at in the context of the litigation being considered; (c) the number of proceedings considered may be small if the proceedings are an attempt to re-litigate an issue already determined against the person; (d) regard may be had to applications made by the person in proceedings commenced against that person; (e) regard may be had to the way the person has behaved and conducted himself or herself in the proceedings before the Court; (f) regard may be had to proceedings in any Australian court or tribunal; (g) regard may be had to the findings and result in the proceedings under consideration." 36I also with respect, entirely agree with Adamson J in Pascoe v Liprini at [14] and [18] with respect to applications of this kind. Her Honour said: "14 The term 'frequently' is relative; it must be looked at in the context of the litigation being considered: Wilson at [12]; Attorney General (NSW) v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942 at [22]; Attorney General v Gargan at [7]; Siteberg Pty Ltd v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344 at [31]-[32]. It is not necessary for a person to commence a large number of proceedings in order for it to be said that the person has done so frequently: Siteberg at [31]. The individual number of proceedings can be quite small if, for example, they are an attempt to re-litigate an issue already determined against the person: Wilson at [14]; Attorney General v Gargan at [7]. ... 18 While the Court needs to form its own view about each piece of litigation relied on by the Plaintiff, the Court is entitled to have regard to the result of the proceedings, and where appropriate, the findings of, and views expressed by, the various judicial officers who dealt with them: Wilson at [22]; Attorney General v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942 at [125]; Attorney General v Gargan at [7]. " 37The requisite test with which the Court must be satisfied before an order can be made is that, here Mr Satchithanantham and Mrs Satchithanantham have: "... frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings ...". 38In understanding this test, there are thus, two steps: first, have Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham instituted, or conducted vexatious proceedings and, second, have they done so frequently. 39As Davies J noted in Wilson at [11], the adverb frequently describes the sum of the vexatious proceedings relied upon and is properly seen, as a relative term, within the context that, orders made under the VP Act of the kind sought here, are a significant matter "... because it is a serious thing to deprive litigants of their access to the courts, a right which might be thought to be an inherent right for persons living in a democratic society under the rule of law ...". 40However, I would add to this expression of principle, that whilst a democratic society does place great emphasis on the right of access to the courts, such right carries with it a responsibility. That responsibility rests on the individual litigant to exercise such access appropriately and not abuse the right, lest such inappropriate use of the right of access denies to, or adversely affects the rights of, other litigants to enjoy their right of access to the same court system. In a democratic society, no right is unconstrained by a responsibility to one's fellow citizens. 41In addition, there is one further issue of legal principle which needs to be considered in this application. 42The proceedings which are relied upon by the NAB include proceedings which were instituted and conducted by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham before 1 December 2008, which is the date of assent of the VP Act, and its date of commencement. The issue which arises is one of potential retrospectivity, namely, in the absence of a clear legislative intention to make the VP Act retrospective, the Court should assume that it was not intended to have retrospective operation: Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261 at 267 per Dixon CJ. 43But as Pearce and Geddes make clear in Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 7th ed (2011) Lexis Nexis Butterworths at [10-4], it is important to draw a distinction between legislation having a prior effect on past events and legislation which bases future action on past events. 44The VP Act will not have a retrospective operation where any order which can be made, is prospective and operates only for the future, even though it may be based on past conduct. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria put the matter succinctly in Robertson v City of Nunawading [1973] VR 819; (1973) 29 LGRA 44 at 824, saying: "[The] principle is not concerned with the case where the enactment under consideration merely takes account of antecedent facts and circumstances as a basis for which it prescribes for the future, and it does no more than that." Other examples of the application of this principle can be found in La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries (1986) 72 ALR 23; Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 20; (1998) 192 CLR 285 and DPP (Cth) v Pirone (1997) 68 SASR 106; (1997) 139 FLR 68. 45The position is no different from that with which the UK Court of Appeal was confronted in Re A Solicitor's Clerk [1957] 3 All ER 617. At 619, the Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, with whom Barry and Havers JJ agreed, said of an amendment that it: "... enables an order to be made disqualifying a person from acting as a solicitor's clerk in the future and what happened in the past is the cause or reason for the making of the order; but the order has no retrospective effect." 46I am accordingly satisfied that I can take into account any proceedings which were instituted or conducted by Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham before 1 December 2008. 47It is now necessary, in light of the legislation and the principles, to consider the litigation in which Mr and Mrs Satchithanantham have been involved.

[2009] NSWCA 358

[2009] FMCA 562

[2009] FMCA 229

[2008] FMCA 940

[2009] HCASL 181

[2009] HCASL 201

[2008] HCASL 586

[2010] FMCA 393

[2002] FMCA 84

(1998) 192 CLR 285

(1997) 68 SASR 106

(1997) 139 FLR 68

(1986) 72 ALR 23

(1957) 96 CLR 261

(1988) 14 NSWLR 481

(1993) 177 CLR 378

Cited By (1)

National Australia Bank v. Satchithanantham [2012] NSWSC 1474

Zeaiter - ADT proceedings 85133 07.07.08 App - - Sought: relief against removal from the premises. - 21.08.08 App - - Sought: interim relief. - 02.07.09 App - - Sought: interim relief. - 02.07.09 Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] NSWADT 237 ADT Fox JM Heard above interim relief applications. Dismissed 05.03.10 Amended App - - Amended 07.07.08 app - changed parties. - 23.09.10 Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 316 ADT Molloy JM Heard 05.03.10 amended app. Dismissed

Zeaiter - SC proceedings 08/289772 (formerly 08/30004) 20.04.10 NOM - - See 21.05.10 amended NOM. - 21.05.10 Amended NOM - - Sought: summary judgment on outstanding claims, possession of retail premises be restored, interruption of eviction from Westmead property and damages of $7M. - 25.06.10 Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Anor v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 715 SC Garling J Heard above NOM's. Dismissed 17.09.10 Oral app SC Garling J Sought: vacate the orders of Garling J (25.06.10). Dismissed 17.12.10 SOC - - Sought: discharge mortgage, liquidated damages and stay of sequestration order. - 13.01.11 - - - NAB sought: SOC be struck out as an abuse of process. - 30.03.11 Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd & Ors v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd (NSWSC, 30 March 2011, unreported) SC Fullerton J Heard NAB's 13.01.11 NOM. Held SOC was an abuse of process. Also restrained the Satchi's. NAB successful 27.04.11 Notice of intention to appeal - - Sought: appeal decision of Fullerton J (30.03.11). - 11.05.11 NOM - - Sought: stay of 30.03.11 order and default judgment be entered against NAB. - 25.05.11 Decision SC Reg Walton Heard 11.05.11 NOM. Dismissed 06.07.11 - - - NAB sought: restrain Mr and Mrs Satchi. 14.07.11 Decision - Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 734 SC Schmidt J Heard 06.07.11 NOM. Ordered Mr and Mrs Satchi be restrained from lodging a caveat on the Westmead property. Restrained 14.07.11 NOM - - Sought: NAB's 06.07.11 NOM be set aside, various orders in the 11.05.11 NOM be dealt with and all orders in proceedings 05/15259 be stayed/set aside. - 11.08.11 Decision SC Fullerton J Heard 06.07.11 NOM. NOM stand, be retitled as a summons and have a new proceedings number. - 18.08.11 Decision - Satchi & Satchi Australia Pty Ltd v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 892 SC Harrison AsJ Dismissed SOC. Dismissed 09.11.11 App - - Sought: re-listing. - 09.11.11 Decision SC Reg Bradford Matter referred to Harrison AsJ. - 09.11.11 Decision SC Harrison AsJ Heard re-listing. Dismissed

Zeaiter - FMC proceedings (SYG882/10) 04.04.10 - - - Mrs Satchi served with bankruptcy notice by Zeaiter. - 03.06.10 App - - Sought: set aside bankruptcy notice or adjourn the hearing or extend time for compliance until three other litigation proceedings are concluded. - 03.06.10 Decision - Satchi v Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 393 FMC Smith FM Heard above app. Held the app was brought to frustrate the bankruptcy proceedings. Dismissed Other proceedings - SC - Sanja Sarma t/as Adidev Enterprises (2006/1143) Date Application / Heard by Heard before Info Outcome Judgment 02.03.06 - - - LC ordered Satchi pay $20k to Sanjay Sarma. Sarma successful 03.03.06 NOM - - Sought: set aside orders. - N/A Decision - - Heard 03.03.06 NOM (in chambers). Dismissed 29.03.06 Summons - - Sought: set aside the 02.03.06 orders. - 15.06.07 Decision SC Reg Howe No appearance by the P's. Struck out the summons. Dismissed 04.07.06 NOM - - Sought: set aside order of Reg Howe (15.06.09). - 27.06.07 Decision - Satchi and Satchi Aus Pty Ltd v Sanjay Sarma t/as Adidev Enterprises [2007] NSWSC 642 SC Malpass AsJ Heard 04.07.06 NOM and 29.03.06 summons. Held there was a lack of evidence. Both dismissed. Dismissed 20.07.07 NOM - - Sought: appeal decision of Malpass AsJ. - 23.10.07 Decision - Satchi & Satchi v Sarma [2007] NSWSC 1184 SC Bell J Heard 20.07.07 NOM. Dismissed N/A Notice of intention to appeal - - Sought: appeal to CA. - N/A Decision SC Reg Schell Heard above holding appeal. Dismissed N/A NOM - - Sought: set aside decision of Reg Schell. - 01.05.08 Decision CA Mason P Heard above NOM. Dismissed Other proceedings - SC - Steffel (2008/12444) 27.07.06 - - - Steffel obtained judgment against Sharma for $4k. 29.06.07 - - - Steffel sought: garnishee order against Satchi. - 26.10.07 Decision LC Mag Garbett Heard 29.06.07 NOM. Held in favour of Steffel for $4k. Steffel successful 24.12.07 Summons seeking appeal - - Sought: set aside orders of 02.03.06 and Steffel pay $154k to Satchi. - 31.10.08 Satchi v Steffel [2008] NSWSC 1153 SC Hall J Heard 24.12.07 summons. Dismissed Other proceedings - SC - Jackson Smith Lawyers (2008/285906) 18.07.08 - - - Mrs Satchi registered an incorrectly recorded certificate of determination of costs (showing that costs should be awarded to her) and obtained judgment 28.10.09 - - - Smith sought: have above set aside. - 26.11.09 NOM - - Sought: Smith's 28.10.09 NOM be dismissed. - 01.12.09 Decision SC Fullerton J Heard 28.10.09 NOM. 26.11.09 NOM dismissed, 18.07.08 judgment set aside 15.12.09 NOM - - Sought: dismiss orders of Fullerton J (01.12.09). - 01.03.10 Decision SC Reg Bradford Heard 15.12.09 NOM. Dismissed 26.03.10 NOM - - Sought: set aside 01.03.10 orders. - 18.05.11 Decision - Satchi v Jackson Smith Lawyers [2011] NSWSC 412 SC Harrison AsJ Heard 26.03.10 NOM. Dismissed and restrained Other proceedings - SC - King Mortgages (2004/12756) and Cash King (2004/13736) N/A - - - Sought: possession. Mrs Satchi cross-claimed for the mortgages to be set-aside. - 15.12.06 Decision - King Mortgages v Satchi; Cash King v Satchi [2006] NSWSC 1303 SC Bell J Heard the proceedings: allowed Mrs S to vary the interest/fees/charges of the loans contracts and mortgages. Mrs Satchi successful Other proceedings - CA - King Mortgages and Cash King (2007/40034, 2007/40035, 2007/400367, 40037/27) Mr and Mrs Satchi filed two NOM's seeking a stay of the judgment. 04.06.07 Decision - Satchi & Anor v Cash King Pty Ltd; Satchi v King Mortgages Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 133 CA Hodgson JA Heard above NOM's Dismissed 09.10.09 NOM - - Sought: leave to proceed (late) - 12.10.09 Decision - Satchi v King Mortgages, Cash King [2009] NSWCA 358 CA Handley AJA, Tobias and Campbell JJA Heard the above NOM Dismissed Other proceedings - HC - King Mortgages and Cash King (S300/2009 and S301/2009) N/A App for special leave - - Sought: special leave to appeal the CA judgment - 31.03.10 Decision - Satchi and Anor v King Mortgage (in liq) [2010] HCASL 61 HC Gummow and Kiefel JJ Heard above special leave Dismissed Other proceedings - CA - Multilink Investments DC proceedings brought by Multilink against Bylander, Mr Satchi and Mrs Satchi. All three appealed. N/A NOM - - Sought: leave to appeal DC decision - 14.03.01 Decision - Bylander v Multilink [2001] NSWCA 53 CA Handley, Giles and Heydon JA Heard NOM above. Appeal successful and judgment set aside. Allowed 11.02.02 Decision - Bylander v Multilink [2002] NSWCA 16 CA Mason P, Santow JA and Ipp AJA Appeal dismissed Dismissed 22.02.02 Decision FMC Reg Hedge Sequestration order against Mr Satchi - Other proceedings - FMC - Multilink Investments (SZ63/01) 23.04.02 Special leave app - - Sought: review orders of Reg Hedge (22.02.02). - 07.05.02 Satchi v Multilink [2002] FMCA 84 FMC Driver FM Heard above app. Dismissed Other proceedings - FC - Multilink Investments (N492/02) 28.05.01 Appeal - - Sought: appeal Driver FM's decision - N/A NOM - - Sought: stay of the sequestration order - 27.06.02 Satchi v Multilink [2002] FCA 914 FCA Jacobsen J Heard above NOM. Dismissed 02.08.12 Amended summons - - Amended ground 3 - damages and losses - 05.08.02 Satchi v Multilink [2002] FCA 974 FCA Conti J Heard amended ground of appeal - removed it Dismissed 18.10.02 Satchi v Multilink [2002] FCA 1277 FCA Conti J Heard the appeal Dismissed