SATCHITHANANTHAM v STEFFEL [2008] NSWSC 1153 | Case summary

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings were commenced by summons filed by, Thambiappah Satchithanantham, the plaintiff, against John Eric Steffel, the defendant, on 24 December 2007. 2 The background to the present proceedings consists of a fairly lengthy history of litigation involving, in particular, the plaintiff to the present proceedings. 3 There has been reference throughout the hearing to Mr Satchi, which is an abbreviation of his full name. I will briefly set out the background to which I have referred and the essence, including the present proceedings. 4 It is convenient to divide the history into four parts. The first part concerns proceedings in the Local Court, No 1160 of 2005, between Mr Sanjay Sharma against, amongst others, Mr Satchi, with judgment given by the Local Court on 2 March 2006 in favour of Mr Sharma against the defendants in that case, including Mr Satchi, in the amount of $20,000. Mr Satchi has thereafter pursued that judgment at almost every level in the court hierarchy in this country, so far as I am aware, excluding the High Court of Australia. 5 He brought an appeal against the judgment in the Local Court and that was decided by Associate Justice Malpass, who heard the appeal on the merits and, on 27 June 2007, he dismissed the proceedings: see Satchi & Satchi Australia Limited v Sanjay Sarma trading as Adidev Enterprises [2007] NSWSC 642. There is then a further appeal from Associate Justice Malpass to a judge of this Court, Bell J (as she then was), who gave judgment on 23 October 2007 dismissing the appeal: Satchi & Satchi v Sharma [2007] NSWSC 1184. Mr Satchi, the plaintiff in the present proceedings, then put on appeal to the Court of Appeal. 6 The holding appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as incompetent by Registrar Schell. 7 The next step was then an application to the Court of Appeal to review and set aside the decisions made by Registrar Schell and on, 1 May 2008, Mason P, dismissed the motion with costs. 8 The second stage of litigation by way of background was the proceedings in the Local Court brought by Mr Steffel against Sanjay Sharma in matter LC 551 of 2006. Mr Steffel commenced those proceedings on 9 March 2006 seeking to recover monies for work he claimed he had performed for Mr Sharma in his capacity as a bookkeeper in relation to the litigation between Mr Sharma and Mr Satchi, proceedings No 1160 of 2005. Mr Steffel succeeded in obtaining judgment against Mr Sharma on 27 July 2006, as I understand it, for an amount of $4,452.70. So far as I am aware, that judgment stands today as a valid judgment of the Local Court at Parramatta, there having been no challenge made to it by the parties to those proceedings. It is the judgment in those proceedings that has caused the plaintiff in the present proceedings so much grievance. 9 The third stage of the related litigation commenced on 29 June 2007 when Mr Steffel, by way of notice of motion, sought a garnishee order against Mr Satchi. 10 Mr Satchi was indebted to Mr Sharma by reason of the outcome in proceedings No 1160 of 2005 while Mr Sharma, in turn, was indebted to Mr Steffel by virtue of proceedings No 551 of 2006. 11 On that basis, within the proposed garnishee order, Mr Steffel sought to recover the amount of $4,551 from Mr Satchi, that sum being the judgment amount that Mr Sharma owed him (Mr Steffel). 12 On 12 July 2007, the garnishee order was made. The garnishee order was served on the plaintiff, Mr Satchi, on 21 July 2007 according to the affidavit of Mr Ramshaw to which I will refer. Mr Steffel was unsuccessful in recovering the amount pursuant to the garnishee order. By way of notice of motion filed on 21 September 2007, he then took steps to have the garnishee, Mr Satchi, attend before the Local Court to show cause as to why the garnishee order had not been complied with. 13 On 26 October 2007, Mr Steffel's notice of motion to show cause was heard and dealt with by Magistrate Garbett in the Local Court. Arising out of the order made by the court on that day, the plaintiff has brought the present proceedings and, again, his grievance relates to the order made on that occasion, as well as his previously mentioned grievance about the judgment against him in proceedings No 1160 of 2005. 14 The fourth stage of the background litigation involved the commencement of the present proceedings in the Equity Division by summons on 24 December 2007, initially as matter No 6227 of 2007. It appears that the proceedings were transferred to the Common Law Division and became proceedings No 12444 of 2008. 15 On the hearing of the summons, the plaintiff relied upon three affidavits of his own sworn 24 December 2007, 3 July 2008 and 24 October 2008. The defendant relied upon his own affidavits sworn on 15 April 2008 and 2 October 2008, as well as the affidavit of his solicitor Mr Yi Ern Phang sworn on 15 April 2008 and the affidavit of service to which I have already referred to sworn by K J Ramshaw on 31 July 2007. There has been a number of documents tendered by way of separate exhibits by the plaintiff, they being marked Exhibit A to F inclusive. 16 The transcript of the Local Court proceedings before Magistrate Gargett (the show cause hearing on the garnishee order) was before this Court, a copy of which was Annexure A to Mr Satchi's affidavit sworn on 24 December 2007. On that occasion, Mr Phang appeared on behalf of his client before the magistrate while Mr Satchi appeared on his own account unrepresented. 17 There were, in fact, two notices of motion before the Local Court on 26 October 2007. There was the notice of motion by Mr Steffel for an order that Mr Satchi show cause and there was a notice of motion by Mr Satchi for a stay. The transcript of proceedings records (on page 6) that Mr Steffel was successful in obtaining judgment. The transcript recording the following:- "Judgment is entered in favour of the judgment creditor [Mr Steffel] against you [Mr Satchi] as the garnishee for $4,634.57 plus costs because it is the Small Claims Division. I'll reduce the cost to $100 only." 18 As at the date, that the magistrate dealt with the two notices of motion on 26 October 2007, as I have said, the proceedings by way of appeal to Malpass AsJ had run their course. The proceedings before Bell J had also completed some three days before, namely, 23 October 2007, and as at 26 October 2007 there appears to have been no proceedings actually on foot at that time, although, as I have stated, Mr Satchi did seek to put on a holding appeal at some point in the Court of Appeal. 19 The matter that Mr Satchi raised before the magistrate as to why he should not proceed with Mr Steffel's notice of motion and why he should grant the stay he sought was because proceedings No 1160 of 2005 in the case brought by Mr Sharma had been the subject of a stay. The magistrate noted that the stay was granted pending determination by the Supreme Court and observed, "Well, it's been determine" (p.3 of the transcript). 20 The question of the proceedings having been stayed or allegedly stayed as at the date the magistrate was dealing with them was the only basis advanced by Mr Satchi as to why the magistrate should not make the order sought by Mr Steffel for Mr Satchi to show cause. 21 To my mind the question as to whether a stay was actually operating at that time in the litigation between Mr Sharma and Mr Satchi would have provided no impediment to Mr Steffel commencing garnishee proceedings even if there was a stay operating. 22 Accordingly, the present proceedings essentially concern an amount in a judgment of the Local Court in its Small Claims Division for $4,634.50. The appeal is brought in respect of that amount as ordered by the magistrate to be the subject of the garnishee order or an amount very close to that. 23 The present proceedings so far as the orders made by the magistrate are concerned making the order in favour of Mr Steffel and dismissing the stay, a motion brought by Mr Satchel are in the nature of an appeal governed by s.39(2) of the Local Court Act 2007 (as at the date of filing of the summons). 24 The proceedings brought by way of summons do not and, of course, cannot revisit the question of the validity of the judgment entered against Mr Satchi in favour of Mr Sharma in proceedings No 1160 of 2005, and they do not concern the validity of the judgment entered in favour of Mr Steffel against Mr Sharma in proceedings No 551 of 2006. Nonetheless, Mr Satchi in the present proceedings seemed intent on seeking to revisit matters going back to 2004 and 2005 leading up to those judgments to somehow mount the proposition that the judgment that Mr Steffel obtained against Mr Sharma was based on a false premise and that that should in some way advance his position. 25 The provisions of s.39(2) of the Local Court Act only provide a party in the position of Mr Satchi to appeal from a judgment of the Local Court sitting in the Small Claims Division on the ground of either lack of jurisdiction or denial of procedural fairness. There was no case sought to be made out as to lack of jurisdiction, nor could there have been. The sole basis, therefore, in seeking to challenge what happened in relation to what Magistrate Garbett did in October 2007 is that Mr Satchi says he was deprived or denied of procedural fairness. 26 The magistrate had before him the affidavit material which established that judgment had been made, the garnishee order had been made. There was evidence that the garnishee order had not been complied with and there was evidence of the attempts that had been made by Mr Steffel to obtain the monies from Mr Sharma. 27 The affidavit of service of Mr Ramshaw also confirms that there had been due service of the garnishee order made back on 21 July 2007. 28 It is true that the magistrate appears to have dealt with the question of a stay in very short form, but it is clear that he could see that the stay application made by Mr Satchi related to the same matter that arose under the notice of motion brought by Mr Steffel and that it was appropriate for him to consider and determine whether or not, having regard to the application by Mr Steffel, there was any grounds for a stay. It is true that the magistrate did not articulate why he dismissed the application for a stay, but there is an abundance of authority that, when a magistrate is dealing with matters and dealing with them on an ex tempore basis, it is not necessary to detail the reasoning process. It is sufficient if it is apparent from the matter before the magistrate and the submissions made as to the basis upon which he acted. It is clear in this case that the magistrate took the view that, there being a valid garnishee order in place, there having been no compliance by the garnishee, that it was appropriate to grant the relief as sought by Mr Steffel and that a stay in the circumstances was not available. As I have said, the only matter as agitated by Mr Satchi according to the transcript was the question of a stay of the order in relation to proceedings No 1160 of 2007. 29 There was no application for an adjournment. There is no other basis upon which it can be said that there was any denial of procedural fairness. Mr Satchi was heard and the magistrate, on the evidence before me, had the papers before him and had understood the content of them and the submissions were made by both parties. 30 The present proceedings, so far as the magistrate's orders on 26 October 2007 are concerned, have escalated to the present stage of the issue of the summons but, in essence, it involves an extremely simple straightforward debt matter for a very small amount in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court, and the evidence satisfies me that the garnishee proceedings brought by Mr Steffel on and after 29 June 2007 were brought regularly and according to law and there is no basis for a finding of procedural fairness as a certainty. 31 I return to the summons. I have had the benefit of written submissions from both the plaintiff and from the defendant, the plaintiff submissions which were filed on 24 October 2008 and which I have read, and the defendant's submissions which I have read, and I have heard supplementary oral submissions today. The summons, in addition to the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2, seeks, without any elaboration, orders that:- "3. Defendant pay Plaintiff $154,500.00 as to an order sought in the plaintiff's notice of motion dated 18/10/2007 in the court below, in particular order 4(d), heard on 26/10/2007, as to the matters involved in the local court file nos: 3788/04, 1160/05, the supreme court file no: 11443/06 and the court of appeal the file no 46734/07, which are nexus to these proceedings involved and the defendant is the man who was the agent and is fully responsible for the plaintiff's suffering since commencement of the local court matter 3788/04 until this date. 4. Defendant pay interest 10% p.a from 15/11/2004 until full and final settlement for the amount stated in the order sought 3 above. …" 32 As I have said, there is nothing in the summons which provides any understanding as to the basis upon which the plaintiff claims he has a cause of action entitling him to claim $154,500. Nothing seems to have been said in oral submissions about it by Mr Satchi. 33 In his written submission, paragraph 7, the only reference to this amount is in these terms and I quote "because the defendant was the key person behind Mr Sanjay Sarma [sic] from day one, defendant should pay damages of $154,500 to the defendants in the local court proceedings 3788/04 and 1160/05 in the local Court, at Parramatta as to real merits of the case". 34 In my opinion, the summons, in which orders are sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 in respect of that amount of $154,500, is completely misconceived and nothing has been said and no evidence has been produced which would make me consider otherwise. 35 Accordingly, I am satisfied that the summons ought be dismissed. There has been no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness made out and no other basis for the relief sought in the summons. Accordingly, the summons is dismissed. **********

SATCHITHANANTHAM v STEFFEL

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (8 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (1)