Kordatos v Eliadis & Associates

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kordatos v Eliadis & Associates [2006] QDC 394

PARTIES:

STEVE KORDATOS

Plaintiff

v

ELIADIS & ASSOCIATES (A FIRM)

Defendant

FILE NO:

D3036/05

PROCEEDING:

Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim and Dismiss Action

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2006

JUDGE:

Judge Brabazon QC

ORDER:

Statement of Claim struck out and proceedings dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CLAIM - SELF-REPRESENTED – Whether the statement of claim should be struck out. Whether summary judgment should be given.

 D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 214 ALR 92

Kordatos v Sweeney (2003) FMCA 461

COUNSEL:

Mr Kordatos in person

Mr Jackson of counsel for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Fox for the defendant

The Issues

1. Mr Kordatos, acting on his own behalf, has brought a claim against his former solicitors, Eliadis & Associates.  He claims “special damages $143,867, interest $99,481 for loss of income, breach of contract and negligence and $50,000 general damages for anxiety, disappointment, inconvenience, frustration, discomfort, stress and strain”.

1. He has had some difficulty in drafting an appropriate statement of claim.  The fourth amended version of the statement of claim now has to be considered.  Should it be struck out?

1. It is also submitted by Eliadis & Associates that, as there is no prospect of success in any of these proceedings, summary judgment should be given, and Mr Kordatos’ claims brought to an end.

1. It is necessary to consider both the history of the matter, and the present version of the statement of claim. 

1. Some unusual features of this litigation should be kept in mind.  First, this is not only a proceeding against a former solicitor.  The allegation is not just that Eliadis & Associates were at fault.  It is that they were at fault in not pursuing his original solicitor, Mr Anthony Gray and others, whose faults give rise to his losses.  Secondly, the facts here show that Eliadis & Associates were retained by him from about 23 January 2004 to about 18 March 2004, some eight weeks.  He was advised to settle a District Court action.  No other action was taken on his behalf.  Indeed, he was advised that he had no grounds to take any other action.  Bearing in mind that his difficulties started in 1992, and that he had, in the meantime, obtained advice from at least three other firms of solicitors, his claims against this defendant should be looked at closely.  If the firm were at fault, what loss would he have suffered?

1. It must be kept in mind, that the strength of any claim against Mr Gray or other solicitors, or his trustee in bankruptcy is not the only issue.  The real issue is the alleged failure of Eliadis & Associates to carry out its retainer on his behalf.  Even if the others were at fault, it does not necessarily follow that his most recent solicitors are also at fault.

Eliadis & Associates

1. Mr Kordatos first saw Mr Eliadis in January 2004.  A…