Tsekouras v Evangelinidis S192/1999 [2000] HCATrans 115 (17 March 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S192 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

CON TSEKOURAS

Applicant

and

VIVECA EVANGELINIDIS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J

KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 17 MARCH 2000, AT 3.08 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR C. TSEKOURAS appeared in person.

MS M.C. WALKER: If it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Mallesons Stephen Jaques)

GUMMOW J: Mr Tsekouras, I understand you wish the assistance of an interpreter.

MR TSEKOURAS: Yes, I already have her here.

GUMMOW J: Yes, very well. Madam, would you mind going in the box and the officer will swear you. If you could be so kind as to give your full name so that it can appear on the transcript.

MARIA LANE, sworn as interpreter:

THE INTERPRETER: I am a Greek interpreter with the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales.

GUMMOW J: Now, if you could go and sit next to Mr Tsekouras. Yes, Mr Tsekouras, would you come to the - - -

MR TSEKOURAS: Here?

KIRBY J: Would you like to start speaking to us in English or do you want to make all of your submissions in your own language?

MR TSEKOURAS: I got my interpreter here but I can try to say something for myself.

GUMMOW J: As you wish.

MR TSEKOURAS: Yes, if you understand. My point is, your Honour, I am not unfit by alcoholic and I am unfit by car accident, and my income was - already is in the book there. I do not have any problem to be unfit by alcohol or any of the other disease - why they say to me - I am unfit by car accident. That is all I am going to say so far.

GUMMOW J: Yes. Now, is there anything else you want to say to us through the interpreter?

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): There are no medications as far as I am concerned about the diseases or the complaints that they say that I have. I am not unfit due to alcohol, or nothing like that.

GUMMOW J: Now, the real problem in this Court is that we have to be satisfied that there is some error of law in the Court of Appeal's judgment or some other reason which makes this case one in which we should intervene.

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): There are no such errors as far as I am concerned. I have all the papers required about my tax returns, about my work. That is all I have to submit. I am not a lawyer to know about that point of law, what is that point of law?

GUMMOW J: That is what we want to know?

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): I just submitted my papers.

GUMMOW J: Yes. Well, does Mr Tsekouras want to add anything to what is said in writing in the application book which we have here?

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): I have already given you other papers as well. Would you pass my bag, please?

GUMMOW J: No, what we want to know is, is there anything Mr Tsekouras wants to tell us now through you that is not already written down in the argument which is in the application book which is on the table there which starts at page 17?

Officer, hand Mr Tsekouras the application book please.

KIRBY J: Also, give him his bag, he might have something in his bag.

GUMMOW J: And his bag too, yes.

MR TSEKOURAS: Thank you very much, sir.

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): Whatever I have had, I have put in there, everything, it is all there. There are all these about medications and doctors' reports.

KIRBY J: Mr Tsekouras, do you understand that you are in the highest Court in the country now?

MR TSEKOURAS: Yes, your Honour.

KIRBY J: We do not review the case by reconsidering its entirety. It only gets in here if you can show that there is a mistake of law or something else special about the case.

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): I have no point of law, but I have got my papers in.

KIRBY J: Yes. Well, the point of law is what usually gets you into the highest court in the country. On the other points, your arguments about the facts, they are normally dealt with in the Court of Appeal, unless there is something special.

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): This is what I want to ask their Honours, why they dismissed my case?

THE INTERPRETER: And, your Honour, Mr Tsekouras is indicating the point "that the applicant is not" - - -

MR TSEKOURAS: No, this one here.

THE INTERPRETER: "If a judgment below determines an appeal or reviews a decision".

MR TSEKOURAS: I want to discuss that.

KIRBY J: Their Honours held that even if you could establish all the things you say, the difference between what you were ordered and what you allege, would not be $100,000, therefore you needed leave to appeal and they did not consider that they should give you leave, because there was also a finding, I think, of 40 per cent contributory negligence which would reduce whatever you were able to recover.

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): My papers do not show that there was 40 per cent negligence on my part.

MR TSEKOURAS: And my medication, I was not alcoholic is another point there. And the solicitor was acting for me. He charge $450,000, that is the way.....in the Supreme Court.

THE INTERPRETER: That was all in English, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Yes, now is there any thing else you wish to say to us?

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): If their Honours know anything else, they could ask me, so I could tell them.

GUMMOW J: Yes.

KIRBY J: We have looked at the papers very carefully before we have come into Court, so we know what the questions that Mr Tsekouras wants to argue are, and we have read both his argument and the argument of the respondent.

MR TSEKOURAS (through Interpreter): This is all I have put in.

GUMMOW J: Yes, thank you. Sit down if you want. Make sure Mr Tsekouras has a chair too.

THE INTERPRETER: Thank you.

GUMMOW J: We do not need to hear you, Ms Walker.

The applicant failed in his application to the New South Wales Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against a decision in the New South Wales District Court. The Court of Appeal acted on the footing that the foreshadowed appeal to the Court of Appeal had no real prospect of success.

The applicant's written summary of argument in this Court discloses no ground on which this Court would intervene and in his oral submissions this afternoon, through his interpreter, the applicant accepted that there appeared no error of law. No other ground for a grant of special leave to appeal appears and, accordingly, special leave is refused, and refused with costs.

The Court will direct Deputy Registrar to send a transcript of our remarks this afternoon to Mr Tsekouras' home at 50 Portman Street, Zetland, 2017, so that he may, at his leisure, study what we have said.

AT 3.22 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED