Evangelinidis, in the matter of Tsekouras v Tsekouras [2000] FCA 859 (14 June 2000)

Last Updated: 27 June 2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Evangelinidis, in the matter of Tsekouras v Tsekouras [2000] FCA 859

VIVECA EVANGELINIDIS v CON TSEKOURAS

N 7106 OF 2000

HELY J

14 JUNE 2000

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7106 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	VIVECA EVANGELINIDIS APPLICANT
AND:	CON TSEKOURAS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an adjournment of the proceedings be refused.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7106 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	VIVECA EVANGELINIDIS APPLICANT
AND:	CON TSEKOURAS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	14 JUNE 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (1)

1 I have before me a creditor's petition against Mr Tsekouras which was presented on 10 February 2000 and first returnable on 22 March 2000. It has now been before the Court on four occasions: 22 March, 24 May, 6 June and 14 June. When the matter came before me on 6 June Mr Tsekouras sought an adjournment to procure legal representation, which I declined to grant. I did, however, adjourn the matter until today and directed the Registry to arrange for the presence of a Greek interpreter because I thought that Mr Tsekouras might have been disadvantaged absent that assistance. He now seeks an adjournment for a further period of four weeks with a view to obtaining legal assistance.

2 Originally he told me that the basis of his adjournment was that his solicitor was sick last week. Later he told me that he does not have a solicitor and that he needs some time to obtain one. The person to whom he first referred as his solicitor was Ms Wilson from the Law Society, who on 2 June 2000 gave Mr Tsekouras a note which stated:

"If you can produce to me proof that you have paid $166,469.54 to Viveca Evangelinidis I will assist you in the appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court."

The note appears to be signed by Ms Wilson. The appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was disposed of on 30 May 2000, hence the notation on the `with compliments' slip does not entirely make sense.

3 The proceedings between Mr Tsekouras and Ms Evangelinidis have a long history. So far as this Court is concerned, Mr Tsekouras made an application before Gyles J to set aside the bankruptcy notice which his Honour refused. Mr Tsekouras appeared for himself on that occasion. There was then an application before Einfeld J on 2 May when his Honour declined to grant leave to Mr Tsekouras to file a notice of motion. Mr Tsekouras also appeared for himself on that occasion. On 30 May 2000 Mr Tsekouras applied to the Full Federal Court for leave to appeal from the decisions of Gyles and Einfeld JJ and again he appeared for himself on that occasion.

4 There is no material before me which indicates that there is any realistic prospect of Mr Tsekouras being able to secure legal assistance in the period in which he seeks. Nor am I persuaded upon the basis of what he has told me that his desire to obtain legal assistance is genuine. In addition Mr Tsekouras has indicated that he wishes an adjournment to enable a subpoena for the production of documents to be issued to Ms Evangelinidis. The schedule to the subpoena which he wishes to issue is as follows:

"Respondent claims that she has paid all of the following amounts, but this is not true. I, the applicant, have paid all of the following amounts totalling $244,895.52."

Then there is listed a series of payments that total that sum. Taken at face value, the subpoena does not make sense. It may be that what Mr Tsekouras wishes to do is to obtain from Ms Evangelinidis all documents in her possession that relate to those payments, but it seems to me that there has been adequate time within which a subpoena could have been earlier issued.

5 In any event, I am not persuaded that the issue of this subpoena would further Mr Tsekouras' position. He has filed some evidence that he made these payments. Assuming that the payments have been made, there has to be some material which establishes that the making of them creates some liability in Ms Evangelinidis in favour of Mr Tsekouras. There is simply nothing before me which would indicate that that is so or likely to be so. For those reasons, I refuse the application for an adjournment which has been sought.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.

Associate:

Dated: 27 June 2000

	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sally Nash & Co
Date of Hearing:	14 June 2000
Date of Judgment:	14 June 2000