Tsekouras v Evangelinidis

[2001] HCATrans 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S187 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

CON TSEKOURAS

Applicant

and

VIVECA EVANGELINIDIS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 6 APRIL 2001, AT 4.02 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR C. TSEKOURAS appeared in person.

MR J.T. JOHNSON:   If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Sally Nash & Co)

GLEESON CJ:   Mr Tsekouras, you have an interpreter?

MR TSEKOURAS:   Yes.

DIMITRI COKINAS, sworn as interpreter:

GLEESON CJ:   Mr Tsekouras, I understand you wish to address us through an interpreter.

MR TSEKOURAS:   Yes.

GLEESON CJ:   Go ahead on that basis.  Let us know what you want to say.  We have read your written material.  Tell us what, if anything, you want to add to that.

THE INTERPRETER:   He says do you want to put any questions to me, I will answer those questions.

GLEESON CJ:   I have no questions to ask of you, thank you.

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   …..

KIRBY J:   Would you speak into the microphone.  The interpreter has to go onto the record, so you will have to swivel the microphone around towards you and if you just speak into that.

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   I have submitted all documents that are required of me.

GLEESON CJ:   And there is nothing that you wish to add?

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   The only thing I have to add is that this matter in this Court is only for the car accident and also the medication that I am taking for the car accident, which that would continue forever.

KIRBY J:   Yes.  We have received the papers and we have read the papers before we came today.

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   If anything else is required from this Court, I will answer to that.

KIRBY J:   Well, Mr Tsekouras realises that we are not hearing an appeal from the car accident case.

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):    I have included all of those things in the book.

KIRBY J:   I realise that, but this is an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court.

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   Yes.

KIRBY J:   The car accident case was in the State courts long ago.

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   Yes.

GLEESON CJ:   All right.  Thank you, Mr Tsekouras.  Is there anything briefly you want to say, Mr Johnson?

MR JOHNSON:   Not unless your Honour wishes some assistance to clarify any matters.

GLEESON CJ:   There is only one thing I would like some assistance on.  On page 38 there is the application for special leave to appeal which is expressed to be an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Judge Goldberg.  Do you see that?

MR JOHNSON:   Yes, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   That, I take it, is in truth an application for leave to appeal from the decision reflected in the order appearing on page 37 of the application book?

MR JOHNSON:   Yes, your Honour.  The reasons that were delivered by the Full Court, Justice Goldberg delivered his judgment at page 32 of the application book; Justice Gray agreed with the reasons of Justice Goldberg on page 30 and Justice Merkel agreed with the reasons on page 31.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, I can see what has happened.  Thank you.

MR JOHNSON:   We understood it to be the entire ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ:   I can see what has happened.  Thank you for that.

KIRBY J:   I think that Mr Tsekouras thinks that this is in some way an appeal from the original damages action in some way.  I think, from what he just said to us, it seems to be his misapprehension.

MR JOHNSON:   That seems to be the case.  That was not ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J:   Do you need – perhaps you could sit with him and translate this, if he does not understand it.

MR JOHNSON:   When the matter was heard before ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ:   Just a minute.  There is an interpreter and we were rather hoping the interpreter would interpret.  Would you just repeat to Mr Tsekouras what is being said?

THE INTERPRETER:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   When the matter was heard before Justice Hely, Mr Tsekouras sought to raise by way of an offsetting claim a large number of expenses that appear to have been incurred in respect of the District Court negligence proceedings against my client.  In substance Justice Hely found that those moneys were not recoverable from my client because of the finding of there being no negligence on the part of my client by Acting District Court Judge Cripps.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.

MR JOHNSON:   Thank you.

GLEESON CJ:   Mr Tsekouras, is there anything you want to add?

MR TSEKOURAS (through interpreter):   Yes, your Honour.  The judge of the District Court found out that the solicitor was not negligent because it was a question of the medication – it was a continuous medication and that medication was for the purpose of the car accident and that will be forever.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.  We understand that.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court dated 15 August 2000.  That decision, in turn, dismissed an appeal from Justice Hely.  We are of the view that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and, for that reason, the application is dismissed with costs.  We will now adjourn.

AT 4.10 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED