Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 12 December 2007, the New South Wales Supreme Court made a costs order against the appellant. An appeal against the costs order was dismissed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 14 July 2008. On 10 December 2008, the appellant's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the costs order was refused. On 14 May 2008 the respondent served a bankruptcy notice on the appellant based on the judgment debt created by the unmet costs order. The appellant did not comply with the bankruptcy notice, and his application to set it aside was dismissed in the Federal Magistrates Court on 1 July 2008. The appellant appealed from the Federal Magistrate's decision, and on 27 February 2009 Edmonds J dismissed the appeal. His Honour published reasons for his orders on 11 March 2009. (Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2009] FCA 198) 2 The creditor's petition brought by the respondent was listed to be heard on 15 October 2008. Pending the resolution of the appeal before Edmonds J the hearing was adjourned to 22 December 2008. On 22 December 2008, the hearing was further adjourned to 22 December 2008 and then to 11 March 2009. 3 On 11 March 2009 the appellant did not attend either the handing down of reasons by Edmonds J or the hearing of the creditor's petition. When he did not appear at the hearing of the creditor's petition the solicitor for the respondent attempted to contact the appellant on his mobile phone, but was unsuccessful. It appears that he was confused about the date because he had lost his diary in January 2009, and thought that the hearing was on either 12 or 13 March. The Federal Magistrate continued with the hearing in his absence and at the conclusion of the hearing his Honour made a sequestration order against the appellant; NAB Limited v Satchithanantham (No.2) [2009] FMCA 229. 4 Mr Satchithanantham now seeks to have the sequestration order set aside. I understand that he has also brought proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking annulment of the sequestration order, and the hearing of that application is scheduled for tomorrow morning. 5 In his reasons for making the sequestration order, the Federal Magistrate said, at [7]: 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. 6 His Honour referred to Mr Satchithanantham's lack of success in his various proceedings since his Honour's earlier judgment concerning the bankruptcy notice and added, at [8]: 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. 7 In considering the evidence of Mr Satchithanantham in relation to the creditor's petition, the Federal Magistrate canvassed in some detail additional evidence concerning the costs order made by the Supreme Court but did not accept that it provided any reason to go behind the Supreme Court's order.