Tasoulas v Tasoulas (No 1)

[2018] NSWCA 225

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Tasoulas v Tasoulas (No 1) [2018] NSWCA 225
Hearing dates:	2 October 2018
Decision date:	02 October 2018
Before:	Basten JA; Payne JA; White JA
Decision:	Application for vacation of hearing date dismissed.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – civil proceedings – appeal – application to vacate hearing date – lack of legal representation – whether legal representation likely to be forthcoming – inability to meet costs order – personal distress suffered by respondent
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Christopher Tasoulas (Appellant) Vasiliki Tasoulas (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Applicant self-represented Mr C Wood/Mr J Wyner (Respondent)   Solicitors: Applicant self-represented Colquhoun & Colquhoun (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/170976
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Equity Division Citation: [2018] NSWSC 861 Date of Decision: 17 May 2018 Before: Rein J File Number(s): 2017/258803

Judgment

1. THE COURT: The appellant seeks to vacate the hearing of the appeal which was fixed for today. The appellant moves on a motion filed last Thursday and an affidavit in support of the motion. The basis of the application is that the appellant has no legal representation, although it is said in his affidavit that he has taken steps to seek to obtain representation. On 27 June 2018 the Registrar of this Court explained to the appellant that it was time for him to obtain representation and that once the date for a hearing had been fixed, it was unlikely that it would be vacated.

2. Although he gave the Registrar assurances that steps would be taken, it appears from his affidavit that the steps which have been taken have been unsuccessful. There is no indication as to precisely when they were taken.

3. One question for the Court is whether it can be satisfied that if the matter were to be vacated today there would be any basis to think that representation would be available at a hearing at some future time. The Court does not see any basis to think that representation would become available.

4. Further if the hearing today were to be vacated it would need to be on the basis that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of today. The appellant accepts that he has no money either to obtain legal representation or, it may be inferred, to pay costs if they were to be ordered against him.

5. A separate factor is that the material contained in the appeal book, including the grounds of appeal and the submissions for the appellant, suggests that significant weight is proposed to be placed on further evidence. Again the appellant was warned by the Registrar on 27 June as to the form in which such evidence would need to be provided and the requirements of s 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). No material has yet been provided to this Court which could be the basis of an application to call further evidence.

6. Counsel for the respondent notes that there is a personal as well as a financial burden which is imposed on the respondent by the continuation of these proceedings. That is a matter which the Court can take judicial notice of.

7. Accordingly, and consistently with the terms of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), it is not appropriate that the hearing today be vacated. The application for vacation of the hearing date is dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 05 October 2018