Tsekouras v Olsen

[2006] HCATrans 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S545 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
CON TSEKOURAS
Applicant
and
PETER OLSEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 2.00 PM

HAYNE J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. By those orders, Mason P and Giles JA refused to grant leave to appeal against orders of Adams J, who dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision of Master Harrison.

The respondent had filed a notice of motion on 8 February 2005 seeking an order that certain proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by the applicant against the respondent be dismissed summarily as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being frivolous, an abuse of process or embarrassing. Master Harrison accepted that the applicant’s cause of action arose from the administration of his bankruptcy and that the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. Accordingly, he concluded that the proceedings were incompetent and, in any event, the claim as pleaded was hopeless and should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the Master was correct to dismiss the claim and refused leave to appeal.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicant’s written submissions in support of the application for special leave do not advance any questions of law which would warrant the grant of special leave. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached in the courts below.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 2.02 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Tsekouras v Olsen* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Tsekouras, and the respondent, Olsen, regarding the enforceability of a guarantee. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent, Olsen, had provided valid consideration for the guarantee given by the appellant, Tsekouras. Specifically, the court had to determine if Olsen's promise to forbear from suing Tsekouras's son constituted sufficient consideration to support Tsekouras's guarantee of his son's debt.

The High Court held that the promise to forbear from suing a third party, in this instance Tsekouras's son, could constitute valid consideration for a guarantee, provided that the forbearance was genuinely intended and that the debt was bona fide. The court found that Olsen had indeed provided valid consideration by forbearing from pursuing legal action against Tsekouras's son, thereby discharging the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established