Re Lazarides - [2023] VSC 242

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT DIARY

S ECI 2023 00150

IN THE MATTER of a proposed proceeding
BETWEEN
BILL LAZARIDES	Proposed Plaintiff
-and-
GEORGE LAZARIDES, THOMAS LAZARIDES AND RENA GLENNON	Proposed Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Forbes J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 May 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Lazarides
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 242

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Self-represented litigant – Refusal by Prothonotary to seal documents as originating process – Plaintiff seeking direction to Prothonotary to accept documents – Documents irregular in form and substance – Application refused – No direction given to the Prothonotary to accept the proposed originating process – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 27.06.

---

HER HONOUR:

Bill and George Lazarides are brothers; Rena Glennon is their sister.[1] Bill wants to commence a proceeding by Writ and Statement of Claim that ventilates a number of disputes within the Lazarides family. George and George’s son Thomas are named as defendants. Rena is named as a ‘stakeholder’.
[1]I will use first names for clarity and ease of reading meaning no disrespect to the parties. I will refer to George’s son Thomas as Thomas Jnr to distinguish him from Bill, George and Rena’s father who is also Thomas and whom I will refer to as Thomas Snr.

On 17 January 2023, Bill attended the Registry Service counter at this Court and sought to file his claim. The Prothonotary refused to accept the originating process for filing without direction from the Court pursuant to r 27.06(1) of Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015 (the Rules), as the document was irregular.

The originating document was a handwritten Writ and Statement of Claim dated 24 February 2022 comprising 27 numbered items over 18 pages. The originating process was accompanied by a certification under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 also dated 24 February 2022 and an affidavit sworn by Bill on 17 January 2023. Bill also provided a number of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) orders in Guardianship List matters.

The letter setting out the reasons for refusing to accept the document for filing said:

Attempting to file a Writ seeking that the Supreme Court make an order which effectively overturns an order of the Guardianship List of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) without attempting to quash the original order is inherently irregular. If successful, there would be two competing orders and no clear legal path to reconcile the differences. The only way to seek an order overturning a standing order of VCAT is to appeal that decision pursuant to s 148 of the VCAT Act or to commence a judicial review pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.
…
Further, nothing in the orders of VCAT provided by Mr Bill Lazarides indicates that he is unable to make a fresh application to VCAT for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Lazarides and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] VSC 242
Decision Date: 9 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a self-represented litigant, Lazarides, who sought direction from the Prothonotary to accept documents that he intended to file as originating process. The Prothonotary had refused to seal the documents, deeming them irregular in both form and substance. Lazarides applied to the court for an order directing the Prothonotary to accept the proposed documents as originating process, arguing that the Prothonotary's refusal was unjust and that he was being unfairly prejudiced due to his lack of legal representation.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether it should intervene and direct the Prothonotary to accept the plaintiff's documents as originating process, despite their irregularities. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, particularly rule 27.06, which governs the acceptance of documents as originating process. The court also examined the Prothonotary's discretion under the rules to refuse to accept documents that do not comply with the required standards.

The court found that the documents in question were indeed irregular in form and substance and did not meet the necessary criteria for acceptance as originating process. The court emphasised that while it sympathised with the plaintiff's situation as a self-represented litigant, it was not within its jurisdiction to override the Prothonotary's discretion in this matter. The court held that the Prothonotary was correctly within their rights to refuse to accept the documents and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any grounds for the court to intervene. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no direction was given to the Prothonotary to accept the proposed originating process.

Orders