Tsecouras v Price

[2008] FCA 845

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tsecouras v Price [2008] FCA 845

PETER TSECOURAS v ANNE PRICE
NSD 655 OF 2008

COWDROY J

4 JUNE 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 655 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	PETER TSECOURAS Appellant
AND:	ANNE PRICE Respondent

JUDGE:	COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 JUNE 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Notice of Appeal and proceedings NSD 655/2008 be struck out pursuant to O 20 r 5(2) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth).

2.The Appellant pay the costs of the Respondent.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 655 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	PETER TSECOURAS Appellant
AND:	ANNE PRICE Respondent

JUDGE:	COWDROY J
DATE:	4 JUNE 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the Court is a notice of appeal filed on 9 May 2008 appealing from the decision of Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones delivered on 6 May 2008. On that day Lloyd-Jones FM made various orders including an order of sequestration against the estate of the appellant. Also before the Court is an oral motion made by the respondent to strike out the appellant’s appeal as an abuse of process pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules (Cth) (‘the Rules’). The appellant is unrepresented but is assisted by a Greek interpreter. He wishes to proceed with the matter today and accordingly the Court has heard the submissions of both parties and will proceed to give its decision forthwith.

2. The relevant history of these proceedings was contained in the decision of Tsecouras v Price [2008] FCA 106.

3. The appellant’s notice of appeal raises five grounds. The first ground states:

   I Peter Tsecouras am still awaiting a determination from the High Court on an appeal (S99 of 2007), so any decision on s 41(6C) should have been deferred until after then.

4. In relation to this ground of appeal it is an acknowledged fact that there are no High Court proceedings current. An application previously made by Mr Tsecouras had already been dismissed by the High Court of Australia on 15 November 2007 from an issue arising out of the same proceedings but not related to the sequestration order.

5. The second ground of appeal states:

   I Peter Tsecouras believed that solicitor Norman Hunter, Hunt Partners, Level, 99, Elizabeth Street, Sydney had applied for an extension on my behalf.

6. Lloyd-Jones FM dealt with this claim at paragraph 16 of his judgment. His Honour read a letter which had been written by Hunt Partners to Mr Tsecouras which stated inter alia:

   We refer to the notice of appearance that you filed in this matter on 14 April 2008. I note that you have made a mistake by including my name in the name of my firm Hunt…