Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2008] NSWCA 168

Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2008] NSWCA 168

The Notice of Motion had to be dismissed because the leave application in the Court of Appeal had already been finally determined, there was no jurisdiction for a single judge to review the two-judge bench's refusal of leave, the Registrar's dismissal of the earlier motion was clearly right, and there was no pending leave application or other jurisdictional basis for staying the costs orders made below.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application by Notice of Motion in Court of Appeal Proceedings Seeking Leave to Appeal / After Final Hearing of Leave Application Had Taken Place and Leave to Appeal Had Been Refused
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['notice of Motion After Final Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'review of Court of Appeal Orders' "review of Registrar's Order" 'stay of Costs Orders' 'jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'costs'] ['notice of Motion After Final Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'review of Court of Appeal Orders' "review of Registrar's Order" 'stay of Costs Orders' 'jurisdiction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Notice of Motion in Court of Appeal Proceedings Seeking Leave to Appeal / After Final Hearing of Leave Application Had Taken Place and Leave to Appeal Had Been Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs orders made in the court below could be set aside or varied in the Court of Appeal proceedings after leave to appeal had been refused.' 'Whether a single judge of the Court of Appeal could review orders made by a bench of two judges refusing leave to appeal.' "Whether the Registrar's dismissal of an earlier motion as an abuse of process should be reviewed." 'Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to stay costs orders made in the court below where there was no pending application for leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion had to be dismissed because the leave application in the Court of Appeal had already been finally determined, there was no jurisdiction for a single judge to review the two-judge bench's refusal of leave, the Registrar's dismissal of the earlier motion was clearly right, and there was no pending leave application or other jurisdictional basis for staying the costs orders made below.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs.']