Apidopou v The Sheriff

[1998] HCATrans 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M31 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

ANGELA APIDOPOULOS

Applicant

and

THE SHERIFF

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 13 FEBRUARY 1998, AT 12.50 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MRS A. APIDOPOULOS appeared in person.

MR G.L. MEEHAN:   May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitor)

GAUDRON J:   Mrs Apidopoulos, you have 20 minutes.  There will be lights after 15 minutes.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes, I will read this statement.  The two officers, Max and Rod Quartermain, from the County Court of Victoria taken the furnitures from the premises of 513 Napier Street, North Fitzroy, on 19 August 1975.  Reason the concreter Bruno Persichelli, whose job did not pass from the inspector of the Shire of Whittlesea.

Keith Martin from the Sheriff’s Office was selling my property of 26 Kenna Driver, Lalor for $50,000 incomplete at the Police Station of Thomastown 1976 for the same concreter.

The head officer of the police station got surprised when he saw me to look around in the office for the sale of the property.  There was nothing like it.

1984 the Deputy Sheriff of Victoria, Peter Duncan, sold the property completed for $51,000 to ex-solicitor, David Jamieson.  The solicitor Russell Ball written to me that he was a creditor and for him the Sheriff sold my property to get the $3,509.14.  $13,206.19 I owed  to the Commonwealth Bank for the mortgage is not deducted from the $51,000.  The balance is not - it is wrong.

For what David Jamieson demanded that amount of monies from me?  I had nothing to do with him.  Definitely he was not the purchaser of the property.

It cannot be to lose the real estate for the plumber Jo Van Duinen of the Dutch Plumbing Service.  Before him I had another plumber, Anthony Hoig, who done the water tapping service at Lot 93 Kenna Drive, Lalor, on 21 November 1973 for $67.

Jo Van Duinen was suing Andreas Crusius from Sunshine in the County Court of Victoria on 13 November 1980.  On that day, he was suing me too.  I got results from the Registrar of the County Court for No. S529641.  Obviously this was wrong action against me.

The Sheriff had order me to vacate the dwelling within three days on Tuesday, 10 am, 29 January 1985.  In those short notice which fallen in the weekend I could do nothing to prevent the eviction.  The senior constable, Stephen Bland, from the Police Station of Epping written to me that the Sheriff from the Country Court of Victoria evicted me.  I was not there at that time.

The next day on Wednesday, 30 January 1985, the Sheriff rang me that it is possibility to get back my beloved property.  He urged me to go in his office at William Street, City.  That afternoon, I experienced enormous bitterness from the Sheriff L. Rountree for his nasty behaviour.  When my signature was taken he turned towards me with sarcastic attitude demanding $125,000 for the property.  What a nightmare.  Why I had to pay those moneys to the Sheriff?  Was he trying out to extort me and taken advantage of me?

The letter to get the $50,000 from Peter Duncan vanished when my solicitor, John Moir, made a telephone call to him 1989.  Peter Duncan is excusing himself that he could not gain an entry to the premises in one of his exhibits No 6.  To seize the goods, chattels, or the vehicle which was parked ion the garage, according to the warrant of execution No S529641 from the County Court.  But he gained an entry thrown them out on the footpath.  Is this not outrageous?

Mr Anthony Hargreaves from the Justice Department of Victoria cut the signatures of the two original cheques from the Sheriff.  Instead to renew them to be cashed he made them invalid on 13 September 1994.

I was devastated losing my dream home and the moneys as well.  I been not proven wrong yet from any court of Victoria. 

Despite my effort to convince the County Court and the Supreme Court for justice, contrary I was loaded to pay the costs of the defendant.

The Master Patkin of the County Court did not find a cause of action against the Sheriff.  The case dismissed on 5 June 1995.  I say the Sheriff is responsible for the sale and the eviction.  It is best that the Sheriff confess with whom else he was involved in this matter.

The Justice Beach of the Supreme Court said, “I leave the case as Master Patkin has order” on 18 August 1995.  Order the costs of the defendant to be paid.

The honourable Judge Meagher of the County Court refused to recognise the summons issued on 19 April 1996.  The case dismissed on 8 May 1996. 

GAUDRON J:   Now, that was in the same proceedings as those that had gone before Master Patkin?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   No, this is completely different.  This was the sequence of the writ and I was asking for the rest of the moneys because they did not pay me the correct money.  There was discrepancy between the money I have received from the Sheriff.

Order to pay the two days taken for the hearing to the defendant’s solicitor P. Dodgson.

GAUDRON J:   Where is that summons in your application book?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   In my application book here, page 13.

GAUDRON J:   Now, where is the first summons before Master Patkin?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   This is page 7.

GAUDRON J:   And you have put them in the same number?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Because I was acting by myself and, as I said, you know, in the argument that ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Were these proceedings, the proceedings at page 7 were dismissed by ‑ ‑ ‑

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   By Master Patkin.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  An appeal to Justice Beach was dismissed?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   And I ask now the Court, because I was by myself ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   But it was dismissed.  You did not take it any further at that stage, did you?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   I did.  I issued the other summons, you know, for the discrepancy for the $50,000.

GAUDRON J:   Where?  You cannot do that because those proceedings are the same.  They are the same proceedings, are they not?  You asked essentially for the same thing.  In one you say “To get the $43,864.41.”  In the other you say “The rest of the monies from the $50,000.00.”  But you are talking about the same moneys, are you not?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Your Honour, it was not my fault, you know, because I ask from the court, from the registrar and the clerks, and they instructed me to do so, you know, because I had no lawyer from the Victoria to help me for that matter because it was the Sheriff and they thought, you know, the Sheriff did the right thing.  But I said the Sheriff was wrong because I had no judgment.

GAUDRON J:   But you have got judgment because Justice Beach, in effect, gave judgment against you.  You cannot keep coming.  You can exhaust the appeal processes but you cannot keep coming to court on the same matter.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   But this is, you know, because I had - you must imagine how desperate because I was by myself and I had no solicitor to consult me and so I was desperate.  I could not get the property back and I could not get the money too.

GAUDRON J:   All that may be right, but you may have made a mistake.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   I accept that.  May I read the rest of it?

GAUDRON J:   Yes, very well.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   The honourable Judge Meagher of the County Court refused to recognise the summons issued on 19 April 1996.  The case dismissed on 8 May 1996.  Order to pay the two days taken for the hearing to the defendant’s solicitor P. Dodgson.  The most amazing to step never ever again to the County Court.

Justice Brooking and Justice Hayne from the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 2 May 1997.  Reason, it had no basis, no foundation.  For what the writ is existed.

Therefore I request the application for special leave to appeal to be accepted and solve this complication I have been through all these years.

I have some more.  I want to ask here in this - this is in the defendant’s argument, page 29, No 3.

On 26 February, 1981, J. Van Duinen (trading as Dutch Plumbing Service) registered a judgement in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the appellant.

And I have got the answer for this.  Applicant’s.....of argument.  I see not any reason that could lead the plumber Jo Van Duin
en taken me at the Supreme Court of Victoria 1984.  He has been paid for each job he had done at Lot 93 Kenna Drive Lalor:  (a) $800 on 18 December 1975.

GUMMOW J:   The real point, Mrs Apidopoulos, and you have got to face up to it, I think, is that you did not appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Beach.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   If I did not appeal from Justice Beach, because Justice Beach he said, you know, he leave it as Master Patkin.

GUMMOW J:   Justice Beach, he upheld the decision of Master Patkin, that is right, is it not?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes.  But it was, you know, far away.  It was from 5 June to 18 August.  I though, you know, it would be now better to do this appeal from 17 July to 18 August but it did not work that way.  It did not work that way, so I did not know.  They did not tell me anything about it.  None of the court.  Just to consult me that it was wrong and I did not know.  I thought it was everything right.

Will you accept me to finish this one?

GAUDRON J:   Yes.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   $800 on 8 December 1975,  $200 on 6 November 1976, $1,000 on 24 February 1978.  Total $2,000.  The letter from the solicitor R.W. Cook disclose that the plumbing was faulty on 15 November 1978.  I was the one dissatisfied with his work.  The Master Patkin admitted that all of us we do mistakes, when he saw the receipts that the plumber was paid and the defects of the plumbing in the letter on 17 July 1995.  I saw not any judgment from the Supreme Court of Victoria against me.  The document from the Supreme Court with the signature of the Chief Clerk, Kevin Maguire, proves it.  The plumber had court proceedings with another defendant at the County Court of Victoria on 13 November 1980.  R.V. Theobald was the solicitor for the plumber then, who has been mentioned in the letter of the solicitors, Barbour and Arnold, on 22 August 1984.  I got the results from that case from the County Court for the No S529642.

The Sheriff denies that he sold the property unlawfully in favour of the ex-solicitor David Jamieson.  The letter from the solicitor John Ball and Sons, dated 27 January 1988, revealed the truth, that it was sold for....from David Jamieson but not for the plumber.  The plumber had nothing to do with me.  Both courts, the County Court and the Supreme Court of Victoria, overlooked that dispute and they were acting in favour of the defendant.  Why is that?  Because it is the Sheriff.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Do I have to continue?

GAUDRON J:   You have five more minutes.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   I am going to read the other argument.

GAUDRON J:   You would be better advised to concentrate on the question why it is that you can bring two sets of proceedings for the same matter.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   But I said so.  You know, you have got to ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   But the general law says you cannot.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   But why they accepted it?  They should not accept it.  They should tell me in the first place that this summons is wrong.  I did not know.  That summons, it was issued ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Because the court people are not under any obligation to give you advice, Mrs Apidopoulos.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes, that is right.  That was issued from 19 April 1985 and they found it wrong the next year, 1997, in the Supreme Court.  Why that long?  Why did they not notify me?  I did not know.  I did not really know.  As I mention here, you know, I had no solicitor from the Victoria, just to help me, because they did not want to act against the Sheriff.  No one.

GUMMOW J:   Just listen to me for a minute.  The Court of Appeal understood all this but what they did, as they were bound to do, was apply the law, page 20 of the application book.  They understood your situation.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   What page is this one?

GUMMOW J:   Page 20 of the application book.  Nothing they said or did in the Court of Appeal appears to be wrong in law.  They understood the background of it all, but they applied the law.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   They applied the law.  I would like to know, you know, what law was that one, since the Sheriff did not follow that warrant of execution from the County Court to seize the furniture and everything, and he found the excuse that he could not get entry to seize the furniture, like the previous officers from the County Court they seized the furniture from 513 Napier Street for the concreter, and no court from Victoria just found me wrong, that I did not pay the plumber.  The plumber, well this is the truth, you believe me or not, it was not the plumber.  It was David Jamieson, and the Sheriff, because he had the power and could do anything that he wanted it, and while I told them, you know, this plumber has been paid and I have got the receipts.  As to Master Patkin, he admitted it.  All of us we do mistakes.  Because he saw the receipts and he saw the letter that the plumbing was faulty, $2,000 from the year 1977, that money was very good money, and the plumber did not pass.  I had two letters from Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works that the plumber had not ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Mrs Apidopoulos, what you have to concentrate on is not what happened with respect to the plumber, but what you say is wrong in the decision of the Full Court.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Because, you know, just I feel guilty - they made me guilty, and I feel so stressed and I feel so unhappy because I done my work correct, and they telling me for the plumber.  Why they not tell me in the first place it was not the plumber, it was somebody else.  It would be much different.  Why they were hiding David Jamieson and they covering him for the plumbing.

GAUDRON J:   Mrs Apidopoulos, you are not addressing the question that arises, namely whether the Court of Appeal was wrong.  That is what you have got to establish, that the Court of Appeal was wrong. 

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   They say it was wrong.  If it was wrong, as I said, why they did not notify me to tell me that it was wrong in the first place because, you know, they know that I am not - I mean, I have got knowledge of the law, but I am not that completely experienced by the law.  They should notify me.  They should.  That I was thinking that I was doing everything correct, when they accepted it, and then after nearly one year they said it is because the appeal has no basis, no foundation.

GAUDRON J:   Your time is now up, Mrs Apidopoulos.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes.

GAUDRON J:   Thank you very much, Mrs Apidopoulos.  We understand your position.  However, we are not persuaded that there is any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal in this matter.  Accordingly, special leave must be refused.

MR MEEHAN:   The respondent seeks costs, your Honour.

GAUDRON J:   Do you have anything to say to that, Mrs Apidopoulos?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   I beg your pardon.

GAUDRON J:   The respondent seeks costs.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   What about my costs?  They were holding the money for such a long time and I could not get the money because, you know, here is a letter ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Could you address yourself to - the general rule is ‑ ‑ ‑

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Here is the letter that I was asking for the money and I could not get the money.  It is a letter from Mr Dodson ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J:   We are talking about costs of this application here this morning, that is all.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes, for this application, because I took this matter to the court ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J:   Are you saying that you should not have to pay the respondent’s costs of this morning?  Is that what you are saying to us, that you should not have to pay the costs of the respondent, of the Sheriff, of this morning’s application here in this Court?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes, because you know I been looking to get my money now for a long long time.

GUMMOW J:   Just listen to me.  The ordinary rule is that the unsuccessful party bears the costs. 

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Yes, here is the letter.

GUMMOW J:   That is no answer to the question.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Mr Phillip Dodson.  “Dear Sir, I receive your letter from 26 October 1995.  It has been too long for me to wait to get the money.  Therefore I am giving to you fortnight notice.  I want the money plus the interest as” ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   We understand that, but you must - and we will allow you one further minute to address the question about the costs of today’s proceedings.

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   Well, I do not have to pay any costs because it was not my fault.

GAUDRON J:   We understand that.  However, that does not address the real question.  Unless you have something to say relating to these proceedings that would take you outside the general rule, the application will be dismissed with costs.  Now, is there anything else you can say?

MRS APIDOPOULOS:   What I had to say, well, I had said it and I have a lot more to say but I have no time.  I knew that I will not be succeed because, you know, he is the Sheriff.

GAUDRON J:   Very well.  We understand your arguments.  The application will be dismissed with costs.

AT 1.15 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED