Evangelinidis, in the matter of Tsekouras v Tsekouras
[2000] FCA 860
•14 JUNE 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Evangelinidis, in the matter of Tsekouras v Tsekouras [2000] FCA 860
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
APPLICANTAND:
CON TSEKOURAS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
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
APPLICANTAND:
CON TSEKOURAS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HELY J
DATE:
14 JUNE 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (2)
Earlier this morning Mr Tsekouras made an application for an adjournment of these proceedings, which I refused for reasons which I then gave. He then chose to leave the Court and during his absence counsel for the applicant read the affidavit evidence on which he relied in support of the petition. Mr Tsekouras was present for part of that process, but not for all of it. Included amongst the affidavit evidence was an affidavit of the applicant verifying the petition and verifying the amount of the debt claimed in the petition. Mr Tsekouras then gave some evidence and was cross-examined. At the conclusion of his cross-examination he asked me to direct that the applicant be called to give evidence. I adjourned to enable Mr Johnson to consider the position, and when the court resumed he told me that his instructing solicitor's inquiries and his own inquiries had failed to locate the applicant, hence she was not in attendance. Mr Johnson's instructions are that had notice been given to the applicant's solicitors that the applicant’s attendance would be required today, prior to shortly before 1 o'clock, her attendance would have been procured.
In those circumstances, Mr Tsekouras once again seeks an adjournment of the proceedings for a number of reasons: firstly to get legal assistance, secondly to issue a subpoena to the applicant and to an unnamed bank, and thirdly to have the applicant give evidence. As to the application for an adjournment to obtain legal assistance, I have already refused this application.
The only additional material that was placed before me was a number of letters from the Law Society dated 8 June 2000 listing the names of firms of solicitors who might be prepared to act for Mr Tsekouras if he were to approach them and to make arrangements for the payment of their fees. There is nothing to indicate that Mr Tsekouras has made any attempt to approach any of these solicitors or that he is either able or willing to pay their fees. I am not prepared upon the basis of this new material to rescind the orders I previously made refusing an adjournment on this ground.
The second basis on which an adjournment is sought is to enable Mr Tsekouras to issue a subpoena to the applicant and to an unnamed bank. The subpoena is in the form of the subpoena which I adverted to in the earlier judgment I gave in these proceedings today, which appears to be directed towards obtaining proof that the payment of the sums of money referred to in par 2 of Mr Tsekouras' affidavit of 8 June 2000. That paragraph has been admitted. There is therefore evidence before me as to the payment of these sums of money and I do not see any point in an adjournment for that purpose.
The third basis on which an adjournment is sought is to call Ms Evangelinidis. It is clear that no notification was given to the applicant of any desire on the part of Mr Tsekouras to call Ms Evangelinidis to give evidence, until shortly prior to lunch. It is through no fault of hers that she is not here for the purpose of giving evidence. The question is whether these proceedings should be adjourned so as to enable her to attend. Having regard to the history of this matter it seems to me that it would be wrong for the proceedings to be adjourned for the purpose of enabling Ms Evangelinidis to give evidence unless I could be satisfied that there was some legitimate forensic purpose which would be furthered by the adoption of that course.
Mr Tsekouras said that the type of evidence that he wanted to adduce from the applicant was on the issues of: “what she had done with the money [he had] given her and why she did not pay the doctors’ accounts”. That explanation is not entirely clear and as best I understand it, it seeks to make out a case which Mr Tsekouras has not heretofore sought to make. Putting it shortly, it seems to rely upon some misappropriation or failure to account, whereas the case which is notified by the notice of intention to oppose the petition and by Mr Tsekouras' affidavit of 8 June, is that he has paid sums of $244,895.52 in circumstances which give him a claim against Ms Evangelinidis for those sums.
I do not want to pre-empt any submissions that people would wish to make as to the effect of the evidence so far, but I should say that I am by no means satisfied that Mr Tsekouras has made out even the beginnings of a case; that if he has made these payments, that they were made in circumstances which expose Ms Evangelinidis to a liability to Mr Tsekouras in relation to them. My general impression from his cross-examination is that if anything has been established it is the opposite of that position. I am therefore not persuaded that there is any utility in granting an adjournment of these proceedings to enable Ms Evangelinidis to attend and give evidence. I therefore refuse the application for an adjournment.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) 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
0
0
0