Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 6)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 23 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] FCA 1683
• Date: 23 December 2025
• Court: Federal Court

Federal Court of Australia

Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 6) [2025] FCA 1683

ORDERS

VID 569 of 2019
BETWEEN:	MOHAN NATCH First Applicant MOHAN NATCH AND KARAN NATCH (AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE WILL OF ANDAL NATCH) Second Applicant OWNERS CORPORATION PLAN NO SP026738V Third Applicant
AND:	STENNSON PTY LTD (ACN 109 103 559) Respondent

order made by:	O'BRYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 DECEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The first applicant’s interlocutory application dated 16 October 2025 (Application) be dismissed.

2. The first applicant’s request for leave to issue a subpoena to each of Darren Cain and Leon Mrocki be refused.

3. The first applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the Application on an indemnity basis.

4. The first respondent’s costs of the Application are to be determined by the Court:

(a) otherwise than by taxation; and

(b) in a lump sum.

5. By 15 December 2025, the first respondent is to file and serve an affidavit setting out the costs incurred by the first respondent on the Application.

6. By 19 December 2025, the first applicant is to file and serve any submission he wishes to make in respect of the costs incurred by the first respondent on the Application.

7. The quantum of costs will be determined by the Court on the papers.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

VID 569 of 2019
BETWEEN:	MOHAN NATCH First Applicant MOHAN NATCH AND KARAN NATCH (AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE WILL OF ANDAL NATCH) Second Applicant OWNERS CORPORATION PLAN NO SP026738V Third Applicant
AND:	STENNSON PTY LTD (ACN 109 103 559) Respondent

order made by:	O'BRYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 DECEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent’s costs of the interlocutory application dated 16 October 2025, payable by the first applicant pursuant to the orders made on 9 December 2025, be assessed in the amount of $23,364.

2. The first applicant pay the respondent’s costs as assessed under order 1 within 14 days of the date of this order.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’BRYAN J:

Introduction

1 By interlocutory application dated 16 October 2025 (Application), the first applicant, Mohan Natch, seeks an order that the order of Justice Anastassiou made in the proceeding on 27 October 2021 be set aside or permanently stayed under r 39.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) on the basis that “the orders were obtained by misrepresentations made by the First Respondent through its pleadings, submissions, and evidence filed in the proceeding”. The first respondent is a company called Stennson Pty Ltd (Stennson). Mr Natch also sought an order that Stennson “and/or its legal team pay the thrown away costs of the First Applicant in this proceeding … on an indemnity basis”.

2 The order of Justice Anastassiou made in the proceeding on 27 October 2021 was an order made pursuant to r 26.12(7) of the Rules granting the applicants leave to discontinue their claims against Stennson, subject to the payment of costs. In these reasons, the order made on 27 October 2021 will be referred to as the Costs Order.

3 The applicants have previously sought to challenge the Costs Order. On 2 December 2021, the applicants filed an application for an extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal against the Costs Order. That application was dismissed with costs by O’Callaghan J on 2 June 2022: Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 641 (Natch 2022). The applicants attempted to file a further notice of appeal in this Court against the decision of O’Callaghan J. That notice of appeal was dismissed in July 2022 on the ground that it was incompetent: Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 801 (McEvoy J).

4 In September 2024, Stennson’s costs incurred in the principal proceeding and the application for an extension of time were taxed by a Judicial Registrar of the Court as taxing officer and certificates of taxation were issued in both matters. In the course of the taxation, the taxing officer refused the applicants’ request for discovery from Stennson. The applicants applied for a review of the discovery decision and a review of the taxation. Those applications were heard and determined by me: Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1498; Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 472; Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 4) [2025] FCA 473 (Natch (No 4)); Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] FCA 807. I dismissed the application for review of the discovery decision, but I upheld one of the many grounds raised in the taxation review.

5 On 22 January 2025, the applicants filed an application for leave to appeal the discovery decision. That application was dismissed on 9 December 2025: Natch v Stennson Pty Ltd (Leave to Appeal) [2025] FCA 1550.

6 By the Application, Mr Natch is making yet another attempt to set aside the Costs Order. As observed recently by Colvin J in Davies, in the matter of an application by Davies [2025] FCA 1552 at [5]:

The Court regards finality as fundamental to any civilised and just judicial system. The reasons for this were explained in Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251 at 273 (Deane and Gaudron JJ). There is injustice if a party is required to litigate afresh matters which have already been determined by the courts. Decisions of the courts, unless set aside or quashed, must be accepted as incontrovertibly correct. Consequently, the circumstances in which the Court will reopen a case after a final hearing and appeal are very confined: D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 at [34]-[36].

7 For the reasons explained below, the Application is utterly baseless. Rule 39.05 of the Rules is not engaged. I consider that Mr Natch’s conduct in bring the Application involves the use of the Court’s procedures to cause vexation or oppression to Stennson and is an abuse of process.

8 On this occasion, Mr Natch brings the Application by himself as the first applicant. Neither the second nor third applicants are parties to the Application.

9 Mr Natch has had legal representation from time to time in the proceeding. In earlier judgments, I observed that Mr Natch seems to have a practice of appointing and dismissing legal representatives. On this occasion, the Application has been initiated by Mr Natch without legal representation.

10 As filed, the Application was unsupported by any particulars or evidence of the alleged “misrepresentations”. At a case management hearing on 5 November 2025, I informed Mr Natch that I was concerned that the Application lacked merit and may constitute an abuse of process. I made orders at that case management hearing which required Mr Natch to file the following materials by 17 November 2025, and listed the Application for further hearing on 25 November 2025:

(a) a statement identifying each misrepresentation alleged to have been made by Stennson as referred to in paragraph 1 of the Application and the facts relied on in support of each allegation of misrepresentation;

(b) any affidavit evidence in support of the allegations made by paragraph 1 of the Application;

(c) a statement identifying the legal representatives of Stennson against whom costs are sought as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Application, the basis for that application for costs and the facts relied upon in support of that application; and

(d) any affidavit evidence in support of the application for costs against Stennson’s legal representatives as referred to in paragraph 2 of the Application.

11 Mr Natch was late in filing the above material, which necessitated an adjournment of the further hearing to 9 December 2025.

12 Mr Natch relies on the follow materials in support of the Application:

(a) a further amended statement of facts dated 5 December 2025; and

(b) four affidavits sworn by Mr Natch, comprising two sworn on 20 November 2025, one sworn on 25 November 2025, and one sworn on 5 December 2025.

13 Mr Natch’s affidavits were a mixture of submission and evidence. I informed the parties at the hearing on 9 December 2025 that I would allow Mr Natch’s affidavits to be read, but I would treat those parts that were submissions as submissions. On that basis, there were no objections to Mr Natch’s affidavits.

14 At the hearing on 9 December 2025, Mr Natch sought to place reliance on a notice to admit dated 14 February 2025 that had been served by him on Stennson in the context of the taxation review. During the hearing of the taxation review, I ordered that the notice to admit be struck out for the reasons explained in Natch (No 4) at [33]. As a result, the notice to admit ceased to have any effect and could not be relied upon by Mr Natch at the hearing of the Application.

15 Stennson seeks orders that the Application be dismissed with indemnity costs and in doing so relies on written submissions dated 5 December 2025 and an affidavit of Darren Frank Cain, the solicitor for Stennson, affirmed 5 December 2025.

16 On 8 December 2025, the day before the hearing of the Application, my chambers received correspondence from Mr Natch attaching two requests for leave to issue subpoenas to give evidence addressed to Darren Cain and Leon Mrocki. Mr Cain is Stennson’s solicitor. Mr Mrocki is a director of Stennson.

17 I heard submissions with respect to the Application on 9 December 2025. After hearing the parties’ submissions, I concluded that the Application lacked any merit and was an abuse of process. I dismissed the Application and ordered Mr Natch to pay indemnity costs. I informed the parties that I would give my reasons later. These are my reasons.

The Costs Order

18 The background to the proceeding is described in the reasons of O’Callaghan J in Natch 2022. In brief, the four respondents were involved in construction on land owned by the first respondent, Stennson, which abutted the first and second applicants’ land. The construction required the installation of ground anchors under the first and second...