Vasiliou v Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co [2006] FCA 69 (6 February 2006)

Last Updated: 10 February 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vasiliou v Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co [2006] FCA 69

ANDREW VASILIOU -v- TASIOPOULOS LAMBROS & CO and BRENDAN JOHN MARCHESI as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of ANDREW VASILIOU

VID 74 of 2006




RYAN J
6 FEBRUARY 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 74 of 2006

BETWEEN:	ANDREW VASILIOU Applicant
AND:	TASIOPOULOS LAMBROS & CO (a firm of Solicitors) First Respondent BRENDAN JOHN MARCHESI as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of ANDREW VASILIOU Second Respondent
JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That the application dated 27 January 2006 be dismissed.
2. That the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application.

3. That the first respondent's costs of the application be paid out of the bankrupt estate after payment of the costs and expenses of the trustee and all provable debts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 74 of 2006

BETWEEN:	ANDREW VASILIOU Applicant
AND:	TASIOPOULOS LAMBROS & CO (a firm of Solicitors) First Respondent BRENDAN JOHN MARCHESI as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of ANDREW VASILIOU Second Respondent

JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 There is before the Court an application, dated 27 January 2006, for the following relief;

‘1. ... a STAY and or DISCONTINUE and or SET ASIDE the Sequestration Order and bankruptcy action imposed on the Applicant named in this Application in which took place before the Federal Magistrates Court on 14th September 2004 in his absence.
2. Removal of the Trustee Second Respondent named in this proceeding.
3. The Applicant he is also seeks from the Court the appropriate Orders for compensations and Orders for payments of all costs associated and for all losses incurred or imposed on the applicant during the time of the action and period when a Sequestration Order was on foot preventing him from operating a normal life and business for himself and for his Family Trust properties and Trust known as THE VASILIOU FAMILY TRUST.
4. The Applicant he also seeks compensation lump sum and payments for personal suffering, pain loss of health and enjoyment of life during the time of the action against him;

5. Any other Order that the Court feels fit to make or applied.
6. Costs.’

2 It is clear that the applicant has already appealed against the making of the foundational sequestration order. An application for a stay of that order and for certain relief against the trustee in bankruptcy was refused by Sundberg J on 11 November 2004. The applicant’s appeal, strictly so called, against the making of the sequestration order was dismissed by Gray J on 29 September 2005. A further application by the applicant and Vasiliki Apostolou for removal of the trustee and for relief in respect of certain real estate claimed by the trustee to form part of the bankrupt estate was dismissed by Marshall J on 14 and 20 October 2005. An application for an extension of time to appeal against those orders of Marshall J was dismissed by Merkel J on last Friday, 3 February 2006.

3 It will be apparent from the recital which I have just undertaken that each of the claims for relief in the present application, filed on 27 January 2006, to the extent that it is justiciable by this Court, has been determined by judicial order. It is not open to me sitting as a single Judge to hear an appeal from, or otherwise review, any of those orders of Sundberg, Gray, Marshall or Merkel JJ. Of course, it is open to the applicant to raise fresh complaints against the conduct of his trustee in bankruptcy but the evidence in support of the present application does not disclose any such fresh complaint. That evidence consists almost entirely of scurrilous or scandalous allegations against various judicial officers and the emotional reactions of the applicant to the consequences of his bankruptcy. That bankruptcy, it seems, has been founded on a very small debt by comparison with the value of the assets comprised in the bankrupt estate.

4 In these regrettable circumstances the application dated 27 January 2006 must be dismissed with costs. I will make the order in these terms:

(1) That the application dated 27 January 2006 be dismissed.
(2) That the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application.
(3) That the first respondent’s costs of the application be paid out of the bankrupt estate after payment of the cost and expenses of the trustee and all provable debts.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.

Associate:

Dated: 6 February 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms J Lardner
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr M Lhuede
Solicitors for the Second Respondent	Piper Alderman
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2006