Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd (No 1)

Case •

[2011] FCAFC 28

•

24 February 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCAFC 28

Citation: Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCAFC 28
Appeal from: Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 64
Parties:

VASILIKI APOSTOLOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VASILIOU FAMILY TRUST) and ANDREW VASILIOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VA UNIT TRUST) v VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD, DAVID CHARLES QUIN, CLYDE PETER WHITE (AS JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD), PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD, CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LTD and REGISTRAR OF TITLES

ANDREW VASILIOU v CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592), PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007), COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE, CITY OF PORT PHILLIP COUNCIL, JOHN MATTHIES & CO and REGISTRAR OF TITLES
File number(s): VID 143 of 2010
VID 704 of 2008
Judges: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ
Date of judgment: 24 February 2011
Date of hearing: 24 February 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3
Counsel for the Appellants: The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents VID 143 of 2010: R Randall
Solicitor the Second and Third Respondents VID 143 of 2010: Thompsons
Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents VID 143 of 2010: D Williams SC with S Rubenstein
Solicitor the Fourth and Fifth Respondents VID 143 of 2010: Norton Rose
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents VID 704 of 2008: D Williams SC with S Rubenstein
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents VID 704 of 2008: Norton Rose
Counsel for the Third Respondent VID 704 of 2008: R McInnes
Solicitor for the Third Respondent VID 704 of 2008: Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent VID 704 of 2008: N Wallace
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent VID 704 of 2008: McCluskys
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent VID 704 of 2008: Mr P Fox of John Matthies & Co

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 143 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

VASILIKI APOSTOLOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VASILIOU FAMILY TRUST)
First Appellant

ANDREW VASILIOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VA UNIT TRUST)
Second Appellant
AND:

VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD
First Respondent

DAVID CHARLES QUIN
Second Respondent

CLYDE PETER WHITE (AS JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD)
Third Respondent

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD
Fourth Respondent

CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LTD
Fifth Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Sixth Respondent

JUDGES:

PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

24 FEBRUARY 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Appellants’ application to adjourn the appeal be dismissed.

2.The Appellants’ application for leave to amend the notice of appeal in an unspecified way be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 704 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

ANDREW VASILIOU
Appellant
AND:

CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592)
First Respondent

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007)
Second Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Third Respondent

CITY OF PORT PHILLIP COUNCIL
Fourth Respondent

JOHN MATTHIES & CO
Fifth Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Sixth Respondent

JUDGES:

PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

24 FEBRUARY 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Appellant’s application to adjourn the appeal be dismissed.

2.The Appellant’s application for leave to amend the notice of appeal in an unspecified way be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 143 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

VASILIKI APOSTOLOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VASILIOU FAMILY TRUST)
First Appellant

ANDREW VASILIOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VA UNIT TRUST)
Second Appellant
AND:

VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD
First Respondent

DAVID CHARLES QUIN
Second Respondent

CLYDE PETER WHITE (AS JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD)
Third Respondent

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD
Fourth Respondent

CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LTD
Fifth Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Sixth Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 704 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

ANDREW VASILIOU
Appellant
AND:

CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592)
First Respondent

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007)
Second Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Third Respondent

CITY OF PORT PHILLIP COUNCIL
Fourth Respondent

JOHN MATTHIES & CO
Fifth Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Sixth Respondent

JUDGES:

PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ

DATE:

24 FEBRUARY 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter was called on for hearing this morning at 10.15.  It has now proceeded to the stage where the appellants’ submissions-in-chief have been given, the respondents’ submissions have been given and the appellant is some way into his submissions in reply.  During the course of delivering those submissions, Mr Vasiliou has applied effectively for an adjournment of the appeal and also for leave to amend his notice of appeal.

  2. We do not think that, having regard to the history of the proceedings, it would be appropriate, in the middle of the afternoon on the day upon which most of the appeal has been heard, to adjourn the proceedings.  The application to amend the notice of appeal was not made by reference to any articulated ground of appeal and, during the course of argument, the Court indicated that it was not minded to deal with an unarticulated amendment application.

  3. In those circumstances the Court proposes to proceed upon the basis that an application to amend has been made to it but to dismiss it upon the basis that no ground of proposed appeal has been articulated.  Both applications are dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Perram, Nicholas & Yates.

Associate:

Dated:        2 March 2011

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0