FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCAFC 28 Citation: Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCAFC 28 Appeal from: Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 64 Parties: VASILIKI APOSTOLOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VASILIOU FAMILY TRUST) and ANDREW VASILIOU (AS TRUSTEE OF THE VA UNIT TRUST) v VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD, DAVID CHARLES QUIN, CLYDE PETER WHITE (AS JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF VA CORPORATION OF AUST PTY LTD), PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD, CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LTD and REGISTRAR OF TITLES ANDREW VASILIOU v CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592), PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007), COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE, CITY OF PORT PHILLIP COUNCIL, JOHN MATTHIES & CO and REGISTRAR OF TITLES File number(s): VID 143 of 2010 VID 704 of 2008 Judges: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ Date of judgment: 24 February 2011 Date of hearing: 24 February 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Appellants: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents VID 143 of 2010: R Randall Solicitor the Second and Third Respondents VID 143 of 2010: Thompsons Counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents VID 143 of 2010: D Williams SC with S Rubenstein Solicitor the Fourth and Fifth Respondents VID 143 of 2010: Norton Rose Counsel for the First and Second Respondents VID 704 of 2008: D Williams SC with S Rubenstein Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents VID 704 of 2008: Norton Rose Counsel for the Third Respondent VID 704 of 2008: R McInnes Solicitor for the Third Respondent VID 704 of 2008: Victorian Government Solicitor's Office Counsel for the Fourth Respondent VID 704 of 2008: N Wallace Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent VID 704 of 2008: McCluskys Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent VID 704 of 2008: Mr P Fox of John Matthies & Co IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 143 of 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Vasiliki Apostolou (As Trustee of the Vasiliou Family Trust) First Appellant Andrew Vasiliou (as trustee of the VA Unit Trust) Second Appellant AND: VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd First Respondent David Charles Quin Second Respondent Clyde Peter White (as joint liquidators of VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd) Third Respondent Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd Fourth Respondent Challenger Managed Investments Ltd Fifth Respondent Registrar of Titles Sixth Respondent JUDGES: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Appellants' application to adjourn the appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellants' application for leave to amend the notice of appeal in an unspecified way be dismissed. 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 704 of 2008 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: ANDREW VASILIOU Appellant AND: CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592) First Respondent PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007) Second Respondent COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE Third Respondent CITY OF PORT PHILLIP COUNCIL Fourth Respondent JOHN MATTHIES & CO Fifth Respondent REGISTRAR OF TITLES Sixth Respondent JUDGES: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Appellant's application to adjourn the appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant's application for leave to amend the notice of appeal in an unspecified way be dismissed. 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 143 of 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Vasiliki Apostolou (As Trustee of the Vasiliou Family Trust) First Appellant Andrew Vasiliou (as trustee of the VA Unit Trust) Second Appellant AND: VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd First Respondent David Charles Quin Second Respondent Clyde Peter White (as joint liquidators of VA Corporation of Aust Pty ltd) Third Respondent Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd Fourth Respondent Challenger Managed Investments Ltd Fifth Respondent Registrar of Titles Sixth Respondent IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 704 of 2008 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: ANDREW VASILIOU Appellant AND: CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592) First Respondent PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007) Second Respondent COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE Third Respondent CITY OF PORT PHILLIP COUNCIL Fourth Respondent JOHN MATTHIES & CO Fifth Respondent REGISTRAR OF TITLES Sixth Respondent JUDGES: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter was called on for hearing this morning at 10.15. It has now proceeded to the stage where the appellants' submissions-in-chief have been given, the respondents' submissions have been given and the appellant is some way into his submissions in reply. During the course of delivering those submissions, Mr Vasiliou has applied effectively for an adjournment of the appeal and also for leave to amend his notice of appeal. 2 We do not think that, having regard to the history of the proceedings, it would be appropriate, in the middle of the afternoon on the day upon which most of the appeal has been heard, to adjourn the proceedings. The application to amend the notice of appeal was not made by reference to any articulated ground of appeal and, during the course of argument, the Court indicated that it was not minded to deal with an unarticulated amendment application. 3 In those circumstances the Court proposes to proceed upon the basis that an application to amend has been made to it but to dismiss it upon the basis that no ground of proposed appeal has been articulated. Both applications are dismissed. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Perram, Nicholas & Yates. Associate: Dated: 2 March 2011