LAKIC v PAPPAS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 28 August 1989 [1989] NSWCA 129 Mahoney JA This is an application to strike out the appeal which has been brought in this proceeding. The judgment was apparently given on 18 February 1988 against Mr Pappas in favour of the plaintiff Mr Lakic. An appeal was filed which bears date 14 March 1988. Since that appeal was filed, apparently little or nothing has been done to bring the appeal on for hearing. An application was made to the court which resulted in an order being made by Samuels JA that the appellant, Mr Pappas, provide security for the costs of the appeal. That order was made, I think, on 10 April 1989. The order required the appellant by 13 June 1989 to furnish security for the costs in such sum and such form as the Registrar of the Court of Appeal shall determine. No security has apparently been given, nor have further steps been taken in relation to the matter. I am informed that the court file indicates that the solicitors by whom the notice of appeal was filed, Messrs Stefanou and Bouzanis, filed earlier this year a notice of ceasing to act. There appears to be appropriate justification for striking out the appeal providing it is established that the motion seeking the order has been properly served upon the appellant, Mr Pappas, or otherwise the service is to be deemed sufficient. The service which is to be relied upon is the sending on 9 August 1989 of letters, I assume properly stamped, addressed to Mr Pappas at the two addresses described in the affidavit of Mr Bartley as his two previously described addresses in Greece. I am informed by Miss Hoeben, who appears in this matter, that the two addresses are firstly the address of Mr Pappas indicated in the notice of appeal which was filed on 14 March 1988 and secondly the address indicated in the notice of ceasing to act filed by Messrs Stefanou and Bouzanis as I have indicated. There is no evidence before me as to the length of time that may be expected to elapse between the posting on 9 August 1989 and the receipt of the notices and letters of notices by Mr Pappas at those two addresses in Greece. The matter was stood over on a previous occasion in order that the question of service could be examined. Miss Hoeben has now referred the court to the provisions of Pt9 and Pt10 and she submits that the court ought to accept that service has been properly effected; that the court ought to confirm the service which has taken place; and that the appropriate orders should be made. This is an application which will in general determine the fate of the appeal, and therefore it is necessary to ensure that appropriate steps have been taken to bring the matter to the attention of Mr Pappas. The solicitors in question apparently have no further relevant interest in the matter and have not been able 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS to assist the applicant Mr Lakic on the present application. Mr Pappas has not filed notice of any address in Australia at which he may be contacted or at which documents may be served on him. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that service by the posting of the letters in question to the two addresses is such service as appropriately may be effected on Mr Pappas at the present time. Insofar as there is power so to do, I confirm that as being appropriate service. In the circumstances I think I am able to infer that the period between 9 August 1989 and the present time would in ordinary circumstances be sufficient for receipt of an overseas letter at the addresses in Greece to which I have referred. I say that with some hesitation and reservation. However, I do not think that it is necessary to rely upon that inference for present purposes. I am satisfied that appropriate steps have been made for service and that it is appropriate to confirm what has been done as sufficient service upon Mr Pappas. In those circumstances, I order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.