Tsiampas v Apex Quarries Pty Ltd

[1998] HCATrans 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M2 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

CONSTANDINOS TSIAMPAS

Applicant

and

APEX QUARRIES PTY LTD

First Respondent

OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

Second Respondnet

GEORGE STAVROU

Third Respondent

DINA STAVROU

Fourth Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON TUESDAY, 19 MAY 1998, AT 10.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_______________________

MR C. TSIAMPAS appeared in person.

THE INTERPRETER:   Your Honour, I am the interpreter for Mr Tsiampas.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Do you understand any English, Mr Tsiampas?

MR TSIAMPAS:   I understand not much but some words I have a problem to understand.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  You appear for yourself.  You understand that much, do you?

MR TSIAMPAS:   Yes.  Can I speak?

GAUDRON J:   Yes, just one moment.  Are there any other appearances in this matter?

MR J.A. NOLAN:   Your Honours, I appear for the second respondent in this matter, the Official Trustee.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

GAUDRON J:   Thank you, Mr Nolan.  I hold a certificate from the Deputy Registrar who certifies that she has been informed by Cornwall Stodart, solicitors for the first respondent, that the first respondent does not wish to take an active part in the proceedings and will abide by the decision of the Court.  The Deputy Registrar also certifies that she has been informed by Nina Bassat, solicitor for the third and fourth respondents, that they do not intend to file a summary of argument in this action and that they will abide by any order of the Court save as to costs.

Madam Interpreter, if you are to interpret for Mr Tsiampas to the Court, we will require you to come forward and be sworn as an interpreter.

PANAGIOTA MORFIS:  sworn to interpret.

GAUDRON J:   Thank you.  Mr Tsiampas should indicate what he wishes to say in this matter.  You should also tell him that he only has 20 minutes and that a bell will ring at 17 minutes and then finally at 20 minutes.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter): Can I start?

GAUDRON J:   Yes, please.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):  Through the interpreter or can I ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   It is a matter for Mr Tsiampas.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   I have a problem to ‑ ‑ ‑

MR TSIAMPAS:   I did not have any problem.

THE INTERPRETER:   Sorry, your Honour, I have difficulty in understanding Mr Tsiampas, even his Greek.

MR TSIAMPAS:   Can I speak English?

GAUDRON J:   If you wish, yes.

MR TSIAMPAS:   I did not have any problem to live in this country what I come by Australia Government.....and treat me like human.  I have been working and I keep my promises for Australia Government and court of law till 1988.  I did.....live in Australia as criminal.....That is the police now.

GAUDRON J:   Mr Tsiampas, this is about - you are seeking leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Federal Court.  This is not a criminal matter.  You have to show that the decision was wrong, that the decision refusing you an extension of time was wrong.

MR TSIAMPAS:   I understand...... arose from a sale did assess me because I come from a job and I sign white papers and they sold my house also.  They make big discrimination in the Federal Court, which they.....my barrister and solicitors.  The day of the hearing I pay $2,500.  I pay $2,500 my barrister and was a court case on 4 and 5 July 1996.  Before the court.....four barristers, they have meeting and they kick my barrister out, left me alone at the Federal Court to talk.  I do not know why but I am Australian citizen and I report to the police a criminal, and the date of the hearing, they no let me to speak.  They no let me to speak, they no let the police to give evidence, then they write - give me evidence, documents for my ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   But, Mr Tsiampas, do you understand that a judgment had been entered against you?

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Yes, $8,000 was against ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   And the question arose whether - and you were then made bankrupt.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   I was tricked into that.

GAUDRON J:   Well, this is not an application concerned with the bankruptcy order.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   It is a big crime.

GAUDRON J:   This is an application concerned with whether or not there should be a proof of debt admitted in your bankruptcy.

MR TSIAMPAS:   I will not get to a hearing at 4, or half past 4, but, as I said before I sign it, why.....They no like me for long, long time.  They sold my house for $8,000.  They have in their hands today $70,000.  Why they have $62,000 without.....in Australia.

GAUDRON J:   Am I correct in thinking that you say that the Official Trustee has $70,000?

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   It was $8,000 and they took away $70,000.

GAUDRON J:   And they took away 70 or 7?

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Seventy.  Would you like to have a look this?

GAUDRON J:   No, we have the papers.  But this case is not concerned with anything other than whether there was to be admitted in your bankruptcy a proof of debt.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   That is why I want to prove that I am not guilty.

GAUDRON J:   Nobody has said you are guilty of anything, Mr Tsiampas.  You are not guilty of anything.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   I am seeking a legal process so the police - and they have cancelled the examine to give evidence.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Well, that cannot be done in this Court; that cannot be done in these proceedings.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Where can I go to find justice when I was tricked and my house was taken away from me?

GAUDRON J:   Well, we cannot give Mr Tsiampas advice.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Why the order was for $8,000; they sold my house and took away $70,000?

GAUDRON J:   I do not know whether that is so or not, but that is a matter to be taken up with the Official Receiver.  It does not arise in relation to the proof of debt.

MR TSIAMPAS:   .....tell the truth of how the people represented yourself court of law.  I am not.....the people really as criminal in this country and people.....me and.....me several times.  I report to the registrar of police.  I did not have anything else make them do it.  I done what I had to done by the Australian court of law and I argue in the court of law, the Australian High Court to be a legal court in Australia because I am a.....citizen and not criminal.....police.....I want my human rights because I am not guilty for any.....or perjury or.....and my citizen by Australia court of law must check the date of the court.  That is what I am here for.

GAUDRON J:   We understand that, Mr Tsiampas, but what you have to do - what the issue is in this case, in this proceeding, is whether there was any error in the decision of Justice Sundberg dismissing your application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision admitting the proof of debt lodged by Mr and Mrs Stavrou.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   It is a forgery and it is wrong.  There is not even $1 damage from me or from anybody else.  This is what the council said.

GAUDRON J:   I understand that, but that is not addressing the question before this Court.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   What can I do?  I comply with the law and the police.

GAUDRON J:   Is there anything else Mr Tsiampas wishes to say either about the decision of Justice Sundberg or the decision admitting the proof of debt?

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   I do not accept any of that.

MR TSIAMPAS:   The reason I am here and I am.....the Court.....suppose not charge my barrister.  They charge.....five solicitors and on what basis?  They left me alone the date of the hearing.  I paid money, Australian money, to my barrister.....any court and not just.....the date of the hearing.  I am a human and I been working and I report to the police.....people.  I ask for a legal court in this country.  I am sure 100 per cent I am not guilty but the Australian court of law and.....It is.....to High Court of Australia to do something about it.....my family because it has come from criminal.

GAUDRON J:   This is not a criminal proceeding, Mr Tsiampas.  There is no suggestion that you are a criminal.  This is simply a matter that arises out of a commercial transaction some considerable time ago, and this is just a commercial proceeding.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   It is a fraud.

GAUDRON J:   If you say it is a fraud, then you must pursue your rights elsewhere.  You have rights, if it is a fraud, and you can pursue them elsewhere.

MR TSIAMPAS:   .....the people who represented.....of Australia they.....me.  They no let me - what they want from me?  They like telling me they represent the big head of the bank.....I sign my house.....and they done anything they want.....I pay my bills, I live by Australia court of law in this country and I owe my......  My.....has to be.....not.....This is not fair by Australia court of law.  I pay my bills.

GAUDRON J:   We understand that, Mr Tsiampas.  There is only one other question and that is:  in any event, this is an application that is way out of time.  Is there anything that Mr Tsiampas wants to say about that?

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   I was sabotaged.  I was not allowed to submit my papers in time and I was not allowed to be represented and that is why I am here today.

GAUDRON J:   Thank you.  Is there nothing else you wish to say?

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Yes.

MR TSIAMPAS:   The High Court of Australia were.....legal court or not?

GAUDRON J:   I did not understand it.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Will I have a court case in Australia?  Yes or no?

GAUDRON J:   This is not - look, Mr Tsiampas is obviously under a misapprehension as to what these proceedings are about.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   Why?

GAUDRON J:   Mr Tsiampas must seek advice elsewhere, I think.  We are not here to advise you, Mr Tsiampas.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   I am here to seek leave to have a proper court and not to be judged as a criminal.

GAUDRON J:   Yes, we understand that, thank you.  Is there anything else to be said on the issue of the correctness of the decision of Justice Sundberg?

MR TSIAMPAS:   Yes.....the second charge where I ask for appeal.  The first charge on 4 and 5 July was a.....Mr Northrop, he was dismiss an appeal from Sunberg and the date of appeal - he does not know what to do.  He was upset the day that Sundberg - Northrop is not ask - he no examination the police or the.....and Sundberg was upset.  But when I ask him from the government and from the High Court why they give me appeal, he was deeply sorry because I was right to put my documents through the court.  Was right because.....my solicitor, barrister.  I am not guilty.....the law and I have a document and I have a witness.  We go police and.....and the police, New South Wales.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Your time is now up, Mr Tsiampas.

MR TSIAMPAS (through interpreter):   What will happen now?

GAUDRON J:   Well, I do not know what will happen now, but I do not think anything will happen now.  That is a matter for Mr Tsiampas to take up elsewhere.  We will indicate what we think of this matter.

The Court is of the view that there is no error to be discerned in the decision of Justice Sundberg.  As this application is out of time, the Court considers that the appropriate order is to refuse the application for extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from the decision of Justice Sundberg.  The order will be the application for extension of time is refused.

Do you make any application, Mr Nolan?

MR NOLAN:  Your Honours, I make no application for costs in this matter.

GAUDRON J:   Thank you.  The Court will now adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 10.59 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED