The Federal Court of Australia has referred a man to the Law Society of New South Wales and the Bar Association of New South Wales for representing an Indian student in a court case without having any legal qualification.
The court said Satchithanatham Thambappah who also calls himself Mr Satchi, was neither a lawyer nor a party to the proceedings and yet purported to represent Indian student Sukhdeep Singh in his appeal against the decision of visa cancellation by the Minister of Home Affairs.
Mr Singh’s Higher Education visa was cancelled in January 2018 following court convictions against him in three cases of sexual offences in which he was handed a suspended sentence of 28 months. Mr Singh was deported to India in March last year.
He filed an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia seeking a permanent stay on the AAT dismissing his application, a merits review of his case and sought damages for the loss suffered due to his visa cancellation.
The court dismissed the appeal and found that it was “incompetent” as it failed to identify any error in law that would invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.
Mr Singh, in written submissions, told the court that he was aware that Mr Satchi was not a lawyer and described him as a “legal adviser”. He also said he had paid Mr Satchi “a significant sum of money” to file a case in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The court said Mr Satchi continued to file documents on behalf of Mr Singh despite him being given a pro bono legal counsel for the case.
“It also appears that [Mr Singh] may have been dissuaded from taking the advice of pro bono counsel as a result of Mr Satchi’s involvement and Mr Satchi’s involvement appears to have played a role in matters which led pro bono counsel to decide that she was unable to continue to act, as she advised the Court at the case management hearing on 16 May 2018,” Justice Perry said.
“Nor did Mr Satchi’s involvement cease following the withdrawal of pro bono counsel, with Mr Satchi attempting to file further documents on the applicant’s behalf subsequently.”
While Justice Perry made no findings with regard to Mr Satchi’s potential misconduct without giving an opportunity to be heard, it was deemed of “sufficient seriousness” to be referred to the Bar Association and Law Society of NSW.
The Bar Association of NSW declined to comment on the matter, saying “we are looking into the case”. The court also considered whether to make a cost order against Mr Satchi before deciding not to take it any further. Mr Singh has been ordered to pay $18,722 in legal cost.
