Promethean Investments Pty Limited & Promethean Trust v Paul Tsilfidis [2014] NSWSC 1047

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Promethean Investments Pty Limited & Promethean Trust v Paul Tsilfidis [2014] NSWSC 1047 Hearing dates: 29 July 2014 Decision date: 29 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Sackar J Decision: see para 13 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Promethean Investments Pty Limited atf the Promethean Trust - plaintiff Paul Tsilfidis - first defendant NSW Trustee and Guardian - second defendant Jack Jacovou - third defendant Representation: Counsel: C Alexander - plaintiff In person - first defendant In person - third defendant File Number(s): 2014/145287

Judgment His Honour 1After the hearing commenced this morning the first defendant, Mr Paul Tsilfidis, made an application that the proceedings be adjourned to an unspecified date in the future. 2His application, it seems, was prompted by some discussion with his daughter (who was present in court with his son) about how to best protect his interests. He has been persuaded that it would be better for him to have legal representation in this matter going forward. 3For reasons which I will shortly outline I propose to refuse this application and the matter therefore will proceed today. 4The basis upon which the application is made is that he believes he will be able to secure the assistance of a lawyer in the very near future. He told me this from the bar table. That does not come about as a result of any contact he has had with any lawyer but, rather, it seems contact his daughter has had today with some unspecified lawyer. 5There is no evidence before me that were I to grant the adjournment he would be in a position to promptly retain a lawyer to assist him in this case and inevitably it would mean that the case could be delayed for potentially many weeks or many months. 6These are proceedings which have been expedited in the Court. An order for expedition was made on 28 May and Mr Tsilfidis was personally served with the relevant documents on 29 May. He has indicated to me that one of the problems he had was that, first, material sent to him by express or registered mail was received late, and he has also told me that whilst on 30 May he indicated to the Court by email that he would be ready to proceed today, he anticipated at that stage that he would be legally represented. 7In relation to the registered mail issue, in my view nothing turns upon that because, first, he has known for some considerable period of time that the hearing was going to be today. Secondly, he has had, both by way of personal service and hand delivery to his home address, all of the documents which he would need to read and consume for the purposes of today's hearing. 8Further I am unable to say that on 30 May he did not believe that his then solicitor, or one of his then solicitors, Mr Livers for example of Slattery Thompson, would not be appearing, but it seems highly unlikely to me that he would be personally communicating with a judge of this Court if indeed at that time he had a retained a solicitor who was ready, willing and able to conduct the case for him on 29 July. 9I am rather of the view that what Mr Tsilfidis had done, as best he could was to canvass the possibility of a number of legal practitioners appearing for him, none of whom have been prepared, perhaps due to his impecuniosity, to accept a retainer to conduct these proceedings. 10Mr Livers formally indicated to the solicitors for the plaintiff that he had no instructions as early as 10 June this year, and I presume Mr Tsilfidis must have known either on, or shortly after 10 June, that Mr Livers was not going to appear for him, and he certainly knew that Owen Hodge his former solicitor was not going to appear either. 11Mr Tsilfidis either made no other attempts at that stage to obtain legal assistance or, alternatively, such attempts as he made were unsuccessful. 12In the present circumstances, as I have said, the Court has already taken the view that this matter has urgency and requires immediate resolution. Mr Tsilfidis well understood that the Court was expediting this hearing, and he was well aware of 29 July as being the hearing date as early as 30 May. 13In all the circumstances, given the very late nature of the application, which I also regard to be unmeritorious, I do not propose to accede to the request for a further delay of the hearing of this matter and therefore the application to adjourn these proceedings is refused.