Apidopoulos v The Sheriff of Victoria M50/2001 [2002] HCATrans 436 (13 September 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M50 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

ANGELA APIDOPOULOS

Applicant

and

THE SHERIFF OF VICTORIA

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2002, AT 1.25 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MRS A. APIDOPOULOS appeared in person.

KIRBY J: I have a certificate, Mrs Apidopoulos, from the Deputy Registrar informing the Court that the Victorian Government Solicitor, who is the solicitor for the Sheriff of Victoria, has indicated that the respondent will abide by the orders of this Court, save as to costs.

MRS APIDOPOULOS: What I have to do now? Just have to continue?

KIRBY J: You will have to keep your voice up so we can hear you.

MRS APIDOPOULOS: Continue, okay.

KIRBY J: You have 20 minutes, you understand that.

MRS APIDOPOULOS: Twenty minutes, okay. A reply in the High Court of Australia in Melbourne. I, Angela Apidopoulos, of 513 Napier Street, State of Victoria, briefly I will express my bitter story to the honourable Justices of the High Court of Australia about this case, No M50, hearing on black Friday, 13 September 2002. I am not superstitious.

My beloved property, living paradise of 26 Kenna Drive, Lalor, taken by the Sheriff of Victoria 1985 who was persuaded from the solicitors, Barbour & Arnold, to sell the property if I do not pay the vague debt. There was no evidence to specify the reason what for I was the debtor. Their request was granted. That happened without evidence to confirm that the Sheriff had the right to sell the property from the law.

My gentle nature was an easy prey for them to extract money from me. They had used the plumber for target that I owed to him money for the plumbing he has done on my property, 1977. In the seventies, the cost of the plumbing was no more than $2,000.

Documents for proof delivered to the Court are not in the appeal book. One: the price then of the Punctual Plumbing was $1,975 for the plumbing; two: the letter from the Metropolitan Board of Works written that the plumber must have a licence for the plumbing and certificate to present when the plumbing is finished. The plumber not only did not show me licence but he did not present me with a certificate of completion for the plumbing.

I was waiting for the plumber two years to do the plumbing; he had no licence. I did not know that. He was listed in the local paper and I trusted him. He asked $800 cash in advance, 1975. I gave him the money as he requested. Finally, he sent an assistant plumber, 1977 to do the plumbing. I paid him $1,000 by cheque. Exhibit B, pages 10 and 11 prove the payment to the plumber.

The contract of the plumber, 1977, was for $880, exhibit A, page 8. I paid him with generosity $1,000, except that the plumbing was not satisfactory. The solicitors, Schetzer Brott & Co testified in their letter - exhibit 4, page 16. This is written proof I owed no money to the plumber.

The letter of Lalor Community Health Services dated 21 May 1984 proves the therapy - they were rendered to me after the telephone call I received early May 1984 from the Sheriff to pay $3,000 to an anonymous and unhappy solicitor. I have mentioned this in my affidavit County Court hearing 1995. This is document 3.

Four: the last payment of the bills I paid after the eviction of my property for the telephone May 2 and for the electricity March 15 1985. If my property sold to David Jamieson on 30 August 1984 by the Sheriff, why I had to pay those bills for seven months?

Five: the letter from the solicitors, Barbour & Arnold, dated 14 January 1986 revealed the name of the anonymous solicitor, R.V. Theobald from Nagambie, for whom issued the writ of venditioni exponas on 19 June 1984, exhibit H, page 26. He was the plumber's solicitor for another case.

Six: the note from the Reserve Bank expressing the regret for the cheque of $1,000 payment to the plumber, 1978, destroyed after four years. Seven: in my affidavit dated 20 April 1995 I mentioned that someone from the Sheriff's Office rang me early May 1984 demanding $3,000 of me for an anonymous solicitor. Master Patkin asked who was the unhappy solicitor court hearing on 5 June 1995, but he did not get an answer. The solicitor remains still anonymous in the letter of the Deputy Sheriff, K.R. Martin, exhibit L, page 41, line 5, for the satisfaction of $3,330.31. Also the total of the $7,824.23 comparing with the payment of $47,373.55, to me it is wrong while the Deputy Sheriff, Peter Duncan, sold the property for $51,000 to David Jamieson, exhibit I, page 29. The Sheriff obviously was cheating.

Eight: the letter from the Government Solicitor, the $47,373.55 to be paid to me, 1995. That cheque was stale and the signature was cut by a member of the Sheriff's Office, 1994, when I presented it to him, exhibit L page 40. I did not get the money of that cheque.

On page 27 the anonymous and unhappy solicitor, R.V. Theobald, was the solicitor for another person, Andreas Crucius, who had court hearing in the County Court of Victoria on 13 November 1989 with the plumber, exhibit H, page 27. The plumber was businessman and he had involvement with other persons, for example, Mr Crucius. I had nothing to do with the plumber and his solicitor for the above case which belonged to somebody else. The Sheriff was forcing me to pay, not authorise the moneys from the court; that it was extortion by him.

Nine: the Sheriff, Peter Duncan, written in his affidavit that he sold the property for $51,000. There is pack of lies. I owed to the bank $13,206.19 for the mortgage, exhibit I, page 30. How come out of the cheque of $47,373.55, exhibit L, page 40, the cheque of $47,373.55 reduces to $43,864.41 by the Sheriff who deducted $3,509.14 for David Jamieson, exhibit K, page 38. David Jamieson issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, 1984, No 5249, exhibit J, page 32, demanding money from me.

His receipt, exhibit K, page 26, has No S84/. The rest of the number is cut. That number of his receipt, it is the same number with the above cheque of $47,373.55. This is proving that the sale of my property was for him. If David Jamieson was the purchaser of my property it was not necessary $3,509.14 payment to him by the Sheriff except that the above cheques were from the Sheriff's Office, but not from David Jamieson.

Ten: the $3,998.23 order from the County Court is withdrawn from the unpaid money from the sale of my property. Master Patkin had not given such an order court hearing 5 June 1995. I am asking the Court, was the litigation for the plumber or for the distress ex-solicitor, David Jamieson, who was pushing the sale of the property, or was it for the anonymous and unhappy solicitor, R.V. Theobald? Definitely the litigation was for the solicitors, but not for the plumber. Their written evidence proven this conspiracy. Also the solicitors, Henty Jepson and Kelly, in their letter, page 31.

Makes no difference who is lucrative of them, the Sheriff or the solicitors. The solicitors, Barbour & Arnold, written in their letter dated 14 January 1986 they did not know when the sale of the property took place. That means their writ of venditioni exponas was unsuccessful. Well, how dare they have done all this conspiracy and they involve me in such a bad case.

Therefore the Sheriff is guilty who committed the crime and the Supreme Court of Victoria is the accessory who let him to execute the sale of the property. This is defamation, humiliation, stress and financial catastrophe for me. I wanted to clear my name and get the justice I deserved from the courts of Victoria. No only I could not reinstated into the property but I did not get the right money for the property. There are moneys to be paid by the Sheriff to me.

Nothing I can do in Victoria, the Sheriff is the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The honourable Justice Phillips of the Court of Appeal court hearing on 27 April 2001 mentioned that the Sheriff is their Sheriff from that court. I have written that in my application, too, page 72 and line 10. His attitude was inappropriate and very rude. He wanted to throw me out of the court because I asked him why David Jamieson was so distressed.

I ask from the High Court of Australia fair hearing by recognises my rights. Leave my application to appeal or to issue writ from the court to recover my monies while I could not get back my property which had been taken from me unjustly. This long-running, hectic and marathon fight with the powerful Sheriff who has been supported by any court, it exhausted me and I cannot resist it any more.

Your Honours, you must see this Sheriff and considerate that the Sheriff of Victoria is an orderly offender. Thank you.

KIRBY J: Thank you very much, Mrs Apidopoulos.

The reasons of the Court will be given, and the order of the Court will be pronounced, by Justice Hayne.

HAYNE J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against an order of the Court of Appeal of Victoria made on 27 April 2001. By that order, the Court of Appeal dismissed applications for orders, including an order reinstating an appeal instituted by the applicant but deemed abandoned for non-compliance with Rules of Court.

The applicant had earlier sought reinstatement of that appeal but had been refused that relief: first by a single Judge of Appeal and then by a Full Court of the Court of Appeal. Her application for special leave to appeal to this Court against that order was dismissed.

The decision of the Court of Appeal which Mrs Apidopoulos now seeks to challenge is not attended by doubt. The appeal which she seeks to have reinstated is an appeal that would fail. Special leave is therefore refused.

MRS APIDOPOULOS: Excuse me, your Honours, I could at least to recover money. I did not get paid. So much money.

KIRBY J: Yes, we have listened to your argument and we have read the documents and Justice Hayne has given the reasons and has pronounced the order of the Court. That transcript will be available to you and you can study the transcript in due course.

Adjourn the Court until 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 17 September in Sydney.

AT 1.40 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED