Rouvinetis v Grant [2001] NSWSC 513

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Rouvinetis v Grant [2001] NSWSC 513 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20298/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 19/06/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 June 2001

PARTIES : Evangelos Rouvinetis v Beverley Grant JUDGMENT OF : O'Keefe J at 1

LOWER COURT Supreme Court (Master) JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : SOLICITORS : Plaintiff in person Alex Lee, Sydney - For defendant CATCHWORDS : Appeal from Master - Strike out of Statement of Claim - Imbalance in representation - Leave to amend refused LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Pt 15 r 26 DECISION : Application by the plaintiff dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY REGISTRY COMMON LAW DIVISION CORAM: O'KEEFE J THURSDAY, 21 JUNE, 2001 No. 20298 of 2001 EVANGELOS ROUVINETIS v BEVERLEY GRANT

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision of Master Malpass given on 24 April 2001 by which he struck out the statement of claim of Evangelos Rouvinetis (the plaintiff) and ordered him to pay costs. An appeal was instituted by a document entitled "Notice of Motion (Notice of Appeal)" which was filed on 5 June 2001. It is thus out of time and no application has been made for an extension of the time within which to lodge an appeal from the decision of the Master. 2 The matter has a long history which, as best I can piece it together from the material before the court, is as follows: in December 1997 the plaintiff was arrested by police officers and charged with assault and resisting arrest. According to the plaintiff these charges were dismissed in March 1998. He then brought criminal charges in the Supreme Court against certain "Crown servants", which proceedings were dismissed in June 1997. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal in respect of this decision but his appeal was dismissed. He then sought to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal in the High Court but, despite his appearance in person, he claims that "the High Court…did not accept the triplicate documents of my action" and his attempted challenge was unsuccessful. 3 New criminal charges were then laid by him against "another Crown servant, but this proceeding was also dismissed". He appealed to the District Court against this decision but such appeal was dismissed. He then instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court for damages. That claim was also dismissed. 4 On 20 October 1999 Beverley Grant (the defendant), on the recommendation of the local police sought an apprehended violence order against the plaintiff. The matter was heard at the Waverley Local Court on 3 April 2000. The Magistrate declined to make the order sought on the basis that she was "not satisfied on the balance of probability that Ms Grant has reasonable grounds to fear harassment". It is in respect of those proceedings that the plaintiff has instituted an action for damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant.