Slaveski v Citigroup Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 757

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Slaveski v Citigroup Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 757

HEARING DATE(S) : 11/07/2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 11 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Malpass

DECISION : The Summons is dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the Summons.

CATCHWORDS : Appeal from Local Court - plaintiff instructs solicitor to make an adjournment application only - application refused and hearing proceeds in absence of the plaintiff - practice of the Court - lack of merits

LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

PARTIES : Lupco Slaveski (Pl) Citigroup Pty Ltd (Def)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 16364/06

COUNSEL : Mr K. Spencer (Pl) Mr S. Aspinall (Def)

SOLICITORS : Henry Davis York Lawyers (Def)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 93698/2006

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Helipurn LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 6/12/2006

- 4 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MALPASS

11 JULY 2007

16364/06 Lupco Slaveski v Citigroup Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: On 28 December 2006, the plaintiff filed a Summons in this Court. It gives an address for service at Lalor, Victoria. It has been brought by way of appeal from a decision in the Local Court on 6 December 2006. The plaintiff unsuccessfully defended a claim for monies owing in respect of the use of a credit card. He was self-represented. 2 Whilst the Summons contains a heading "Appeal Grounds" and five purported grounds listed there under, nothing therein could be accurately described as an appeal ground. Since the filing of the Summons, nothing has been done to rectify that defect. 3 The Summons has been before the Court on a number of occasions. It was first before the Court on 7 February 2007. It was stood over to 28 February 2007. The plaintiff was seeking both legal aid and pro-bono assistance. He says that he was refused both of them. On 28 February 2007, orders were made in accordance with a Short Minute of Order (including the allocation of a hearing date for 4 April 2007). The plaintiff did not appear on 4 April 2007. In an affidavit sworn by him, he submitted to the following:- "14. On April 4 2007, the plaintiff was not very happy because he had to fly again under the influence of a lot of medication when the matter could have been heard via telephone conference or via video link, like other matters were heard on the day."