Pastrello v Saeedi

[2025] ACTCA 18

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Pastrello v Saeedi

Citation: 

[2025] ACTCA 18

Hearing Date: 

4 June 2025

Decision Date: 

6 June 2025

Before:

Muller AJ        

Decision: 

(1)  The application lodged on 7 May 2025 is dismissed.

(2)  Costs of the application are reserved.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to expedite hearing of appeal – interests of justice – where expediting appeal would displace hearing of already allocated appeal – application dismissed

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules2006 (ACT), rr 1311, 1401(4), 5437

Cases Cited: 

Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2014] FCA 1090

Parties: 

Luisa Sonia Pastrello ( First Appellant)

Eddy Louis Pastrello (Second Appellant)

Kamyar Saeedi (in his capacity as executor of the estate of the late Lorenzo Pastrello ( First Respondent)

Carl Lorenzo Pastrello (Second Respondent)

Christian Ivan Pastrello (Third Respondent)

Massimo Max Eddy Pastrello (Fourth Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

G Blank ( First and Second Appellant)

M Mascitti ( First Respondent)

W Sharwood (Second, Third and Fourth Respondent)

Solicitors

Thomson Geer ( First and Second Appellant)

Kamy Saeedi Law ( First Respondent)

KJB Law (Second, Third and Fourth Respondent)

File Number:

AC 3 of 2025

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:          ACT Supreme Court

Before:   Mossop J

Date of Decision:       12 February 2025

Case Title:                Saeedi v Pastrello

Citation: [2025] ACTSC 26

MULLER AJ: 

EDITED EX TEMPORE REMARKS

Introduction

1․This is an application for expedition of the hearing of an appeal.

2․The trial judge gave his decision on 12 February 2025 and a Notice of Appeal was filed on 11 March 2025.

3․The primary proceedings concerned the validity of a will executed by the late Lorenzo Pastrello (Mr Pastrello) on 18 December 2020. Mr Pastrello died on 4 August 2021. There is a contest as to whether a grant of probate should be made in accordance with the disputed will, which divided Mr Pastrello’s assets amongst his children and grandchildren (the respondents’ position), or alternatively whether probate ought be granted in accordance with an earlier will executed in 1988 which made provision for Mr Pastrello’s children only (the appellants’ position).

4․The appeal raises 4 primary grounds, but in effect there are 24 separate grounds of appeal.

5․This application for expedition is made by the second, third and fourth respondents to the appeal, that is, the parties who were successful at trial. The application identifies prejudice to the parties as the primary ground upon which the application for expedition is based. To avoid confusion I shall hereafter refer to the applicants/respondents as “the applicants” and the respondents/appellants as “the respondents”.

6․An affidavit of Massimo Pastrello, affirmed on 7 May 2025, is read in support of this application, with the applicants also relying upon earlier affidavits of Massimo Pastrello, Kamyar Saeedi and Tamara Goodwin filed in these appeal proceedings in the context of the respondent’s application for a stay. The effect of the stay proceedings was that a stay of the decision of the trial judge was granted until…