Tsecouras v Price

Case [2008] FCA 106


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tsecouras v Price [2008] FCA 106

PETER TSECOURAS v ANNE PRICE
NSD 2076 OF 2007

COWDROY J
20 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2076 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

PETER TSECOURAS
Appellant

AND:

ANNE PRICE
Respondent

JUDGE:

COWDROY J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules the Amended Notice of Appeal and the appeal be dismissed.

2.The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the motion and of the appeal.

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 2076 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

PETER TSECOURAS
Appellant

AND:

ANNE PRICE
Respondent

JUDGE:

COWDROY J

DATE:

20 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The respondent’s notice of motion before this Court seeks an order that the appeal be struck out.

  2. By amended notice of appeal filed on 20 December 2007 the appellant (‘Mr Tsecouras’) appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael delivered on 2 October 2007 in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. By such decision Raphael FM dismissed an application made by Mr Tsecouras to set aside the bankruptcy notice pursuant to s 41(6A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 which relevantly states:

    (6A)Where, before the expiration of the time fixed for compliance with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice:

    (a) proceedings to set aside a judgment or order in respect of which the bankruptcy notice was issued have been instituted by the debtor; or

    (b) an application has been made to the Court to set aside the bankruptcy notice;

    the Court may, subject to subsection (6C), extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

  3. Mr Tsecouras also appeals from the orders made by me in this Court on 30 November 2007, although the only orders made on that date were as follows:

    1.The appellant file and serve an amended notice of appeal by 4 pm on 13 December 2007.

    2.The proceedings be adjourned until 9.30 am on Tuesday 18 December 2007.

    3.The respondent be at liberty to file a notice of motion to strike out the proceedings on Monday 17 December 2007 to be made returnable on Tuesday 18 December 2007.

    4.Costs be reserved.

    As these orders were not addressed in either Mr Tsecouras’ written or oral submissions, the purported appeal from such orders will be ignored. 

  4. By notice of motion filed on 17 December 2007 the respondent (‘Ms Price’) seeks orders that Mr Tsecouras’ appeal be dismissed pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules as constituting an abuse of process or alternatively that summary judgment be entered in her favour pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Such motion is the…

Continue reading Tsecouras v Price

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tsecouras v Price [2008] FCA 106
Case
[2008] FCA 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the respondent, Ms Price, filed a notice of motion seeking orders to dismiss the appellant's appeal on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of process or, alternatively, for the entry of summary judgment in her favour. This motion was brought before the court after the appellant, Mr Tsecouras, had unsuccessfully appealed against a decision made by Associate Justice Macready in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in relation to a claim under the Family Provision Act 1982. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, and Mr Tsecouras's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was also dismissed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appeal constituted an abuse of process under O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules and whether summary judgment should be entered in favour of Ms Price under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court examined the conduct of Mr Tsecouras in pursuing the appeal, considering whether his actions were unreasonable or an improper use of the court process. The court also assessed whether there was an arguable case in favour of Ms Price that would warrant the entry of summary judgment.

The court found that the appeal was an abuse of process and dismissed it, along with the amended notice of appeal. The court held that Mr Tsecouras's conduct in pursuing the appeal was unreasonable, as he had continued to do so despite multiple dismissals and the lack of prospects of success. The court also found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, and therefore, summary judgment was appropriate in favour of Ms Price. Consequently, Mr Tsecouras was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion and of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules the Amended Notice of Appeal and the appeal be dismissed.

2. The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the motion and of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

By notice of motion filed on 17 December 2007 the respondent (‘Ms Price’) seeks orders that Mr Tsecouras’ appeal be dismissed pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules as constituting an abuse of process or alternatively that summary judgment be entered in her favour pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Such motion is the subject of this judgment.FACTS In 2005 Mr Tsecouras instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under the Family Provision Act 1982 against the estate of the late Diana Rosemary Keefe who died on 23 October 2003 aged 81 years (‘the deceased’). Ms Price is the executrix of the deceased’s estate and one of the eight beneficiaries of that estate. In his claim Mr Tsecouras alleged that a defacto relationship existed between the deceased and himself. On 6 July 2006 Associate Justice Macready delivered judgment in which his Honour found that no such relationship existed between Mr Tsecouras and the deceased. His Honour dismissed the proceedings and ordered Mr Tsecouras to pay costs. Ms Price duly obtained judgment against Mr Tsecouras in respect of the award of costs, and such judgment formed the debt upon which bankruptcy notice NN2367/07 was issued against Mr Tsecouras. The bankruptcy notice was served on 12 September 2007. Mr Tsecouras appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal (‘the Court of Appeal’) from the decision of Associate Justice Macready. Such appeal came before Handley JA in the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2006 in response to a motion filed on 1 December 2006 to strike out the appeal. Handley JA struck out the grounds of appeal but adjourned the notice of motion to 26 February 2007 to allow Mr Tsecouras an opportunity to reformulate his notice of appeal. On 26 February 2007 the notice of motion again came before Bryson JA in the Court of Appeal who considered an amended notice of appeal dated 31 January 2007. His Honour found that this document suffered from the same defects as those which were contained in the notice of appeal which had been considered by Handley JA. Bryson JA said:The paragraphs under the heading ‘Grounds’ could not be treated as intelligible ground of appeal and the document should be struck out. Bryson JA so ordered and ordered Mr Tsecouras to pay Ms Price’s costs of the appeal and of the notice of motion dated 1 December 2006. On 19 March 2007 Mr Tsecouras filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against the decision of Bryson JA delivered on 26 February 2007. It should be observed that the High Court of Australia dismissed Mr Tsecouras’ application for special leave to appeal to that court on 15 November 2007. On 19 September 2007 Mr Tsecouras made an application to set aside bankruptcy notice NN2367/07. The grounds for setting aside the notice are stated as follows:I am still awaiting notificatin [sic] date for a Hearing in Case No.S99 of 2007 filed March 19 2007 in the High Court of Australia, and the matter has not been settled.See also letter sent to Supreme Court of Australia, re will and costs.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

COWDROY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COWDROY J

Full text does not contain this section.