Promethean Investments Pty Limited and Promethean Trust v Paul Tsilfidis

[2014] NSWSC 1047

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Promethean Investments Pty Limited & Promethean Trust v Paul Tsilfidis [2014] NSWSC 1047
Hearing dates:	29 July 2014
Decision date:	29 July 2014
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	Sackar J
Decision:	see para 13
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Promethean Investments Pty Limited atf the Promethean Trust - plaintiff Paul Tsilfidis - first defendant NSW Trustee and Guardian - second defendant Jack Jacovou - third defendant
Representation:	Counsel: C Alexander - plaintiff In person - first defendant In person - third defendant
File Number(s):	2014/145287

Judgment

His Honour

1. After the hearing commenced this morning the first defendant, Mr Paul Tsilfidis, made an application that the proceedings be adjourned to an unspecified date in the future.

1. His application, it seems, was prompted by some discussion with his daughter (who was present in court with his son) about how to best protect his interests. He has been persuaded that it would be better for him to have legal representation in this matter going forward.

1. For reasons which I will shortly outline I propose to refuse this application and the matter therefore will proceed today.

1. The basis upon which the application is made is that he believes he will be able to secure the assistance of a lawyer in the very near future. He told me this from the bar table. That does not come about as a result of any contact he has had with any lawyer but, rather, it seems contact his daughter has had today with some unspecified lawyer.

1. There is no evidence before me that were I to grant the adjournment he would be in a position to promptly retain a lawyer to assist him in this case and inevitably it would mean that the case could be delayed for potentially many weeks or many months.

1. These are proceedings which have been expedited in the Court. An order for expedition was made on 28 May and Mr Tsilfidis was personally served with the relevant documents on 29 May. He has indicated to me that one of the problems he had was that, first, material sent to him by express or registered mail was received late, and he has also told me that whilst on 30 May he indicated to the Court by email that he would be ready to proceed today, he anticipated at that stage that he would be legally represented.

1. In relation to the registered mail issue, in my view nothing turns upon that because, first, he has known for some considerable period of time that the hearing was going to be today. Secondly, he has had, both by way of personal service and hand delivery to his home address, all of the documents which he would need to read and consume for the purposes of today's hearing.

1. Further I am unable to say that on 30 May he did not believe that his then solicitor, or one of his then solicitors, Mr Livers for example of Slattery Thompson, would not be appearing, but it seems highly unlikely to me that he would be personally communicating with a judge of this Court if indeed at that time he had a retained a solicitor who was ready, willing and able to conduct the case for him on 29 July.

1. I am rather of the view that what Mr Tsilfidis had done, as best he could was to canvass the possibility of a number of legal practitioners appearing for him, none of whom have been prepared, perhaps due to his impecuniosity, to accept a retainer to conduct these proceedings.

1. Mr Livers formally indicated to the solicitors for the plaintiff that he had no instructions as early as 10 June this year, and I presume Mr Tsilfidis must have known either on, or shortly after 10 June, that Mr Livers was not going to appear for him, and he certainly knew that Owen Hodge his former solicitor was not going to appear either.

1. Mr Tsilfidis either made no other attempts at that stage to obtain legal assistance or, alternatively, such attempts as he made were unsuccessful.

1. In the present circumstances, as I have said, the Court has already taken the view that this matter has urgency and requires immediate resolution. Mr Tsilfidis well understood that the Court was expediting this hearing, and he was well aware of 29 July as being the hearing date as early as 30 May.

1. In all the circumstances, given the very late nature of the application, which I also regard to be unmeritorious, I do not propose to accede to the request for a further delay of the hearing of this matter and therefore the application to adjourn these proceedings is refused.

**********

Amendments

06 August 2014 - decision content added

Amended paragraphs: coversheet

Decision last updated: 06 August 2014