Vasiliou v Honourable Justice Marshall

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vasiliou v Honourable Justice Marshall [2011] FCA 588

Citation:		Vasiliou v Honourable Justice Marshall [2011] FCA 588
Parties:		ANDREW VASILIOU and OPTQUEST PTY LTD (ACN 006 828 664) v HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHANE RAYMOND MARSHALL
File number:		VID 92 of 2009
Judge:		GORDON J
Date of judgment:		31 May 2011
Date of hearing:	30 May 2011
Date of last submissions:	30 May 2011
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	14
The First Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Submitting Appearance

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 92 of 2009

BETWEEN:

ANDREW VASILIOU
First Applicant

OPTQUEST PTY LTD (ACN 006 828 664)
Second Applicant

AND:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHANE RAYMOND MARSHALL
Respondent

JUDGE:	GORDON J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MAY 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed. 

2.There be no order as to costs. 

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 92 of 2009

BETWEEN:

ANDREW VASILIOU
First Applicant

OPTQUEST PTY LTD (ACN 006 828 664)
Second Applicant

AND:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHANE RAYMOND MARSHALL
Respondent

JUDGE:	GORDON J
DATE:	31 MAY 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter concerns an application filed on 12 February 2009.  The first named applicant is a Mr Andrew Vasiliou (who was described as the Guardian and Appointor of the Vasiliou Family Trust) (Mr Vasiliou).  The second named applicant is Optquest Pty Ltd (ACN 006 828 664), (as trustee of the Vasiliou Family Trust) (the Second Applicant).  The named respondent is described as the “Hon Shane Raymond Marshall (a Federal Court Judge)”.  The application was supported by an affidavit. 

2. As a preliminary matter, I note that the Second Applicant is a company.  In Federal Court proceedings, a company must be represented by solicitors unless leave of the Court is granted: see O 4 r 14 of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) (the Rules).  The Second Applicant does not have solicitors on the record and no leave has been granted.  However, for the reasons that follow, ultimately that issue may be put to one side.

   PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

3. The application sought the following relief:

   1.An order setting aside the directions given by Justice Marshall on the 19th December 2008;

   2.A declaration from the Court that the application referred to in this proceeding is not an abuse of process;

   3.An order that the Registry of the Court comply with Justice Heerey’s directions given on the 15th of December 2008 and accept the application and notice of motion and to file those as soon as possible with the Court; and

   4.Costs and other remedies as the Court feels fit to apply or make on the date of hearing(s).

4. The application was described as an “[a]pplication…