Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank [2010] HCATrans 101 (23 April 2010)

Last Updated: 29 April 2010

[2010] HCATrans 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S265 of 2009

B e t w e e n -

HEMALATHASOTHYRANJINI SATCHITHANANTHAM

Applicant

and

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK (ABN 12 004 044 937)

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 23 APRIL 2010, AT 11.52 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MS H. SATCHITHANANTHAM appeared in person.

MR A. LEOPOLD, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS N.C. BEARUP, for the respondent. (instructed by DibbsBarker Lawyers)

PREMILA CHRISTOPHER: I am the interpreter.

FRENCH CJ: You are the interpreter. Thank you. Just take a seat. Mrs Satchithanantham, we understand that you wanted your husband to speak on your behalf. However, we are not prepared to agree to that because of the particular issues which would involve your husband separately in this case, so we will just be dealing with you. Now, Mrs Satchithanantham, we have read what you have written, or what has been written and supplied by way of submission and argument in this case.

THE INTERPRETER: She is telling she wants her husband’s support because she is not going to handle the case so wants her husband to talk to me, talk to you.

FRENCH CJ: We are not prepared to allow that to happen and the reason is because her husband is not completely independent in this matter.

THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, she is telling that the lawyer was appointed. At the last minute he told he cannot make it up today. That is why he was not able to come and then she does not know much of the things. Only her husband was dealing. Only she is to sign the papers. That is all she is telling.

FRENCH CJ: Yes. I think, Mrs Satchithanantham, there is no solicitor on the record here so you come to this Court unrepresented but we have had the benefit of all of your written submissions so we have your written argument anyway. The purpose of these proceedings is to give you the opportunity to add anything orally, but we understand that you have said everything you want to say in the written material, which no doubt your husband assisted you in preparing, which has been put before the Court.

FRENCH CJ: Yes. So you rely upon your written submissions?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

FRENCH CJ: Yes, all right. Just take a seat for a moment, then. Did you have anything to add to your written submissions, Mr Leopold?

MR LEOPOLD: No, your Honours.

FRENCH CJ: All right, thank you. Mrs Satchithanantham, the Court has read all the materials and we are firmly of the view that there should be no grant of special leave to appeal in this case. I will shortly state our reasons and the interpreter can, perhaps, explain them to you as I go.

The applicant, Mrs Satchithanantham, seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales dismissing an appeal against a decision of Justice McCallum. Justice McCallum had granted limited relief to Mrs Satchithanantham under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). The relief awarded by Justice McCallum varied a loan agreement.

The loan agreement had been entered into between Mrs Satchithanantham and the Bank and was partly for the benefit of her husband. Under that agreement some $675,000 or thereabouts had been drawn down by Mrs Satchithanantham. The court varied the loan agreement so that it would operate in all respects as if the loan amount advanced and debited to Mrs Satchithanantham’s account had been $408,665.86. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the decision of Justice McCallum.

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.

We will now adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 12.01 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED