Korel v Cashwise Liverpool [2003] NSWSC 514

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Korel v Cashwise Liverpool [2003] NSWSC 514 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 June 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 June 2003 JURISDICTION: Common Law Division JUDGMENT OF : Master Malpass DECISION : The proceedings are dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings. I direct that no further document be filed by him in this Court without the prior leave of a Judge.

CATCHWORDS : Litigant in person - uncertainty as to relief sought - vexatious litigation concerning very modest sum - no question of principle. LEGISLATION CITED : N/A CASES CITED : N/A Alfred Korel (Plaintiff) PARTIES : v Wise One Pty Ltd T/as Cashwise Liverpool (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12703 of 2002 COUNSEL : N/A (Plaintiff) Mr A Canceri (Defendant) SOLICITORS : In Person (Plaintiff) Stoikovich Macri (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Master Malpass

Thursday 5 June 2003

12703 of 2002 Alfred Korel v Wise One Pty Ltd T/as Cashwise Liverpool

JUDGMENT 1 MASTER: These proceedings were commenced by Summons filed on 30 September 2002. The plaintiff is a litigant in person. 2 The Summons claims the following relief:- "1. An order pursuant to Section 15 of the NSW Fair Trading Act 1987 (or any other Act) that provision be made out of the estate or notional estate of both of Wise One Pty Ltd for the plaintiff. 2. An order that the Plaintiff's costs be paid out of the defendant estate. 3. Further or other orders. " 3 These proceedings arise out of a dispute between the parties following the purchase by the plaintiff of a used digital camera for the sum of $180. It appears that it was sold to him by PUP Internet Auctions Pty Limited. If that is the case, the named defendant is not the party to be sued in respect of that dispute. 4 Prior to the commencement of these proceedings the dispute had already gathered a lengthy history. The plaintiff had initially commenced proceedings in the Fair Trading Tribunal. These proceedings were misconceived. Despite that, a settlement was negotiated. The plaintiff then refused to accept payment pursuant to that settlement. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to take enforcement action in the Local Court. These proceedings were also misconceived. They also generated much litigious activity. 5 These proceedings were heard on 5 June 2003. The only evidence before me is to be found in an affidavit sworn by Mr Yates. Both sides have addressed me and I have had regard to what has been said during those submissions. 6 It is unclear what is wanted by the plaintiff in his Summons. There has been considerable speculation as to what relief may have been contemplated thereby. During submissions it appeared that the plaintiff had moved to a position where he may now be seeking to recover compensation of some kind. If that be the case, this Court is not the appropriate jurisdiction. 7 Be that as it may, whatever is wanted by the plaintiff, there is no evidence before the court which would justify the granting of relief of any kind. 8 These proceedings are vexatious and they follow a lengthy vexatious history concerning a very modest sum. 9 The proceedings are dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings. I direct that no further document be filed by him in this Court without the prior leave of a Judge. **********