Apidopoulos v The Sheriff of Victoria M61/2000 [2001] HCATrans 25 (16 February 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M61 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

ANGELA APIDOPOULOS

Applicant

and

THE SHERIFF OF VICTORIA

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2001, AT 4.03 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MS A. APIDOPOULOS appeared in person.

GUMMOW J: Just before you start, I should say that the Court holds a certificate from the Deputy Registrar of information by the Victoria Government Solicitor, who is the solicitor for the Sheriff, the respondent, that the respondent will submit to any order of the Court save as to costs. Yes, Ms Apidopoulos.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Reply to the reasons of the President, Mr Winneke, and the justices of the Appeal Court of Victoria by the applicant. Page 63 line 15, I was aware of the rule 64.08. Therefore, I had the note of proposed contents of appeal book with me to be filed on 28 February 2000. It has not been accepted that day by Mrs Anderson, a member of the appeal court, when I produced it to her that day. Also, this is referred in the affidavit 2000, page 26 and lines 5, 10 and 15.

Mrs Anderson was more interested, page 68, line 10, reasons for the seven-day delay occurred because Mrs Anderson was more interested about the list of the parties served than the note of proposed contents of appeal book referred in affidavit page 26, lines 5 and 10. That day she had given to me a note of the list of parties served to be filed urgently but nothing said about the list of the appeal book. This is the copy of Mrs Anderson. This is the original and this is the copy.

GUMMOW J: No, we are not receiving evidence.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Which I pass it to the Registrar. Page 66:

This process [under s.46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1958 ] alternatively by s.46(2)(b), a Judge of Appeal may exercise the powers of a Court of Appeal to make any order or give any direction in any appeal or other proceedings but not an order or direction involving the determination or decision of the appeal or other proceedings.

Here, page 62, nature of application on summons to vary or discharge by the justices of the appeal court on 26 May 2000 was wrong. Reasons. Pursuant to rule 4 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) 64.26 Supreme Court Rules. Jurisdiction and powers exercisable by a single judge of appeal or two judges of appeal. (c) for leave under rule 64.06(1) to amend a notice of appeal or cross-appeal. (e) for an order under rule 64.14(4) that an appeal or cross-appeal be not discontinued or as to costs or otherwise. (g) for an order under rule 64.16(2) that an appeal not be taken to be abandoned. (h) for an order under rule 64.16(3) as to payment of costs where an appeal is taken to be abandoned. (l) for directions under rule 64.19(3) for the conduct of a cross-appeal where an appeal is discontinued or is taken to be abandoned. (m) for an order under rule 64.20(1) for an extension of time and for direction under rule 64.21.

Therefore, your Honours, I am determined to meet my rights by the law. From this documentary I saw not a reason to be evicted by the Sheriff for the plumber after eight years since the job he had done on my property, otherwise I would have paid that particular debt to him willingly if it was a specific cause shown for that matter. There is no proven evidence for that accusation. The justices failed to see that.

I have some more to say. The Honourable Judge Lewis of the County Court has dismissed the proceedings as been an abuse of process because he has not been through to the documents I provided to the court for the hearing. The proceedings is not an abuse of process, as I written on page 75, line 5, for the argument. Do you want me to read it or not or you got it?

HAYNE J: We have it, thank you.

MS APIDOPOULOS: You do not want it?

HAYNE J: We have it.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Okay. Page 63, line 25, the material indicated before Mr Justice Chernov by the County Court judge F.B. Lewis order on 9 February 2000, are false allegations which prove nothing about the history of this second plumber I had arranged on February 1977 referred in exhibit A, page 30. Under the rules written in the summary of argument, page 77, lines 10, 15 and 20, that allegations were hollow for the plumber, who had not made any complaint about his payment of $1,000 for more than two years time since 1978, page 32, exhibit B, until the warrant, page 40, 1980. The plumber did not send me a bill scaling the costs for the job he had done on my property for the $1,468.75 he demanded from me after two years.

GUMMOW J: That is a long way away and I know it lies behind all of this, but it is a long way away from the immediate question before the Court of Appeal of Victoria.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Okay. I am going to read something out of this. The plumbing was faulty - written evidence. What I have in the application book and I read it to you. The plumbing was faulty - written evidence from the solicitors Schetzer Brott and Co. Page 37, exhibit D, the plumbing it was truly faulty. I am not going to read this one because, your Honour, you said you are not interested.

GUMMOW J: It is not a question of not being interested. It is a question of focusing upon the grounds.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Okay. I am not going to read this one. Yes. The judgment - do you want me to read for the judgment 1981?

GUMMOW J: You take whatever course you see fit but I am inviting you to focus on the actual issues.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes. Was not executed in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Page 54, exhibit K, the solicitors Carroll and Dillon had proven that. Also I had mention it in the summary of argument, page 76, line 30. The plumber's solicitors, Sargeants, would not had given up if they were successful that year.

That is a proof the Sheriff unlawfully had taken an action selling the property in 1984 without a warrant of sale and seizure from the Supreme Court. Page 77 part 4 in the summary of argument I am explaining the Sheriff's wrongdoing actions. Unfortunately, the judges who took part in this dispute failed to observe those facts. Alternatively, under rule 23.01, page 77, line 30, the original cause of action it exist because I never been compromised with Sheriff. I am not going to lose such a property in all my life now, and they spoil my lifestyle and I came here in Australia such a young person and work hard to build my dream home and taken it now, with insufficient evidence, with nothing. Well, I am going to fight it. Well, I am fighting, indeed.

One minute. So, therefore, your Honours, I am determined to meet my rights by the law and I have written here. Well, I have some more to read and so you said yourself, so you not interested.

GUMMOW J: The Court has not said it is not interested, Mrs Apidopoulos. I mean, the Court has invited you to focus on the actual issue.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes. Well, because - - -

GUMMOW J: Just listen to me.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Well, this is - - -

GUMMOW J: Just listen to me for a minute, please.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes, okay.

GUMMOW J: The actual issue, whether or not the Court of Appeal of Victoria made some error of law which will attract our attention, that is the question.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes. Well, that is - - -

GUMMOW J: All that you are seeking to read to us lies behind that.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes, okay.

GUMMOW J: Right behind it.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Well, I came here, I came to the High Court, you know, just, you know, because, you know, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, you know, they refused to extend the time to filing the note of proposed contents of appeal but as I prove it to you, you know, with this document here, the document I show you there, well, it was not my fault, you know, because I was aware of that, you know, as I have written here, page 63, line 15, and I was aware of the rule 64 point - therefore, I had the note of proposed contents of appeal book with me to be filed on 28 February 2000. Well, I did not file it because they did not accept - it was not accepted. So, the appeal was filed without this note of proposed contents, which is not my fault.

Well, I prove it to you, that is not my fault. At the hearing it was in the Court of Appeal to extend the time to file the note of proposed contents of appeal but not to criticise, you know, the appeal. But the appeal, if they criticise the appeal, as I have written here on page 3 now, there are so many rules here to be amended and reinstated and they failed to do so.

Well, I have been accused, you know, of the delay of the note of proposal of contents. Well, it is not my fault. I prove it to you. I am not going to read the other ones, you know, as you - as they are, you know, from a long time. You see that is why, as I said, you know - I said "I'm not....., you know, to lose such a property because people, you know, without giving me nothing and take my property without" - your Honour, I put all the hard work in for that property and you know, taken, why? They telling me for the plumber. I prove it, you know, it was not the plumber. Well, I prove it. How do I have to prove to them? What I have to say? The plumber never complaining. Well, I was - you know, I am not a person to leave the plumber and not to pay him, but he never complain, he never send me a bill to scale, you know. Well, why you accusing someone I owed him money. He has to prove it to me, you know, what for I owe to him the money, to scale me the cost. What he had done and he want this $1,400 and this money, after two years since he had been paid.

Well, they found, you know, the excuse for the plumber and I prove it all these years, you know, is not the plumber. All the courts, they reject me. They never took this case seriously. But for me, it is a very serious because it is a lifetime work because I spent all my time working, working from early in the morning and night, and rush home and all the time rush and rush and I wanted it like everybody, you know, wants to have a dream home. So, I succeeded. Why they had to take my dream home without proving to me nothing? Their evidence are insufficient. There is nothing - hollow. It is hollow evidence. The judges, why did they not see this? Why did they not see the wrongdoing of the Sheriff? And, well, plus, on the top, I was doing the complaining and plus I pay so much money to the solicitors - to the solicitors. I had previous - a number of solicitors. They all were knocked off. So, I want to, you know, have a solicitor and advise they to represent me but I cannot do it because they told me they - is not allowed to help me. And I said, "Why?" "We cannot tell you." I said, "Why you cannot tell me?" That is why I representing myself here.

GUMMOW J: Now, is there anything else you want to add, Mrs Apidopoulos?

MS APIDOPOULOS: Well, as I said, I am determined to meet my rights, you know, just continuously to do it, you know. I just want to, you know, just to give me, you know, the right to amend the appeal, to amend it if..... - you know, just to amend it. It is so much prospect, you know, to be succeeded. Why they have to reject me all the time like that? What else to say?

GUMMOW J: Is there anything else you want to add to that?

MS APIDOPOULOS: Well, this is defamation. Because I have been distressed. I have been so happy and I have been so proud as originally in my statement and, you know, the house, you know - I mean, the house, as you have seen it, it is so beautiful and expensive and it is a big house, you know, just room to move with beautiful gardens and everything, you know, nice place and, you know, nice views and to see now the sun rise, to see the sun rise and sun set from - because two storey - and well, I miss all this, you know. Why? Why? Without any evidence. As I said, you know, when you are accusing a person, you must prove it, you know, the accusation, for this false accusation for the plumber. Where is the plumber? I have been search everywhere and I could not find any plumber because the plumber - I do not think he was a plumber because otherwise, you know, he could have send me a bill, he could have ring me, he could have told me, you know, that he wants the money. He never said nothing after I paid him $1,000. In the contract, even there were not $1,000.

GUMMOW J: That is not the immediate issue, as you have been reminded several times here today.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes, I know. I know, yes. Just I mention to you, you know, just because, you know, I am wondering how these justices - all these hear but did not see, you know, the wrongdoing of the Sheriff because this is completely wrong; completely wrong. As I said, you know, they had to pay me. They had to pay me to abandon the appeal because the hearing, it was not for the appeal. It was to extend the time for the note of proposed contents of appeal and they said - they refer now for the appeal. The hearing was not for the appeal. It was to extend the time. Well, they found the excuse, you know, to abandon the appeal.

Well, the appeal, as I said, you know, it has a prospect to be succeeded. Well, I put it all these rules there and I am fighting by the law and I like and I want to get the law because I feel ashamed, I feel so ashamed and I feel so humiliated. Why? Like Adam and Eve, they have been exile of the paradise, just I feel that way. But maybe they did it wrong but I say, well, I cannot see any wrong. I saw nothing - no reason to be evicted; no reason. What is the reason? How come?

Well, I am - I am educated from Europe and here I have got four diplomas, but sometimes I exercise them and sometimes not, but that is, you know, how I am. I mean, my age past, you know, well, I am not that young as I was when I came here and, well, I feel very humiliated. I feel disfamed and people, "OH, Angela, how you lost that paradise." "I lost it." "You lost it." This and that. Of course, I do not want to walk out and I do not want to meet people and I change character completely. I am not the same person since I have been evicted. I am not.

GUMMOW J: Your time is up, Mrs Apidopoulos.

MS APIDOPOULOS: Yes, I know, and thank you.

GUMMOW J: An appeal to this Court would raise a question of the practices and procedures of the Court of Appeal of Victoria in exercising the power under section 11 of the Supreme Court Act (Vic) whereby the Court of Appeal may vary or discharge orders made by a judge of appeal sitting alone. There are insufficient prospects of success to attract a grant of special leave. Accordingly, special leave is refused.

The Court will adjourn until Tuesday, 6 March 2001.

AT 4.27 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED