Vasiliou v Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co [2004] FCA 1467

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vasiliou v Tasiopoulos Lambros & Co [2004] FCA 1467 ANDREW VASILIOU v TASIOPOULOS LAMBROS & CO VID1348 OF 2004 SUNDBERG J 11 NOVEMBER 2004 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID1348 OF 2004

BETWEEN: ANDREW VASILIOU

APPLICANT

AND: TASIOPOULOS LAMBROS & CO

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 NOVEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion notice of which was filed on 4 November 2004 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID1348 OF 2004

BETWEEN: ANDREW VASILIOU

APPLICANT

AND: TASIOPOULOS LAMBROS & CO

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 2004

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant had a dispute with his builder. The respondents acted as solicitors for the applicant in that dispute. The respondent sued the applicant to recover its fees for acting for him, and on 25 January 2000 it obtained judgment by default against him in the Magistrates Court. The judgment was for $23,220.82. 2 On 8 March 2000 he applied to the Magistrates Court to set aside the judgment. He did not attend the hearing and the application was refused. On 26 July 2004 a further application was made to set aside the judgment. The applicant attended the hearing. The application was unsuccessful. The applicant has unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 3 The respondent served a Bankruptcy Notice on the applicant. On 15 June 2004 the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed his application to set aside that Notice. The applicant says he has appealed against that decision. 4 On 14 September 2004 Registrar Wood made a sequestration order against the applicant's estate. 5 The applicant applied to the Federal Magistrate's Court for a review of the Registrar's decision. The applicant sought to challenge the respondent's debt and asked the Court to go behind the default judgment. In dismissing the application the Magistrate said: "Apart from making assertions that the Respondent has failed in its professional obligations, has colluded with the supporting creditor, has 'inflicted upon me serious bad things', and has charged for work not done, or charged excessively, the Applicant has provided no material that would raise a concern about the "truth and reality" of the judgment debt. His attempts to set aside the default judgment and the Bankruptcy Notice have failed to persuade competent tribunals that such should be done. In light of that, and the lack of any other evidence or material that the judgment debt is open to real challenge, I cannot be satisfied that I should exercise my discretion other than to accept the truth and reality of the judgment debt. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that I should go behind the judgment debt."