Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tasoulas v Tasoulas (No 1) [2018] NSWCA 225 Hearing dates: 2 October 2018 Decision date: 02 October 2018 Before: Basten JA; Payne JA; White JA Decision: Application for vacation of hearing date dismissed. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – civil proceedings – appeal – application to vacate hearing date – lack of legal representation – whether legal representation likely to be forthcoming – inability to meet costs order – personal distress suffered by respondent Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Christopher Tasoulas (Appellant) Vasiliki Tasoulas (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant self-represented Mr C Wood/Mr J Wyner (Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant self-represented Colquhoun & Colquhoun (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/170976 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Equity Division Citation: [2018] NSWSC 861 Date of Decision: 17 May 2018 Before: Rein J File Number(s): 2017/258803 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment 1. THE COURT: The appellant seeks to vacate the hearing of the appeal which was fixed for today. The appellant moves on a motion filed last Thursday and an affidavit in support of the motion. The basis of the application is that the appellant has no legal representation, although it is said in his affidavit that he has taken steps to seek to obtain representation. On 27 June 2018 the Registrar of this Court explained to the appellant that it was time for him to obtain representation and that once the date for a hearing had been fixed, it was unlikely that it would be vacated. 2. Although he gave the Registrar assurances that steps would be taken, it appears from his affidavit that the steps which have been taken have been unsuccessful. There is no indication as to precisely when they were taken. 3. One question for the Court is whether it can be satisfied that if the matter were to be vacated today there would be any basis to think that representation would be available at a hearing at some future time. The Court does not see any basis to think that representation would become available. 4. Further if the hearing today were to be vacated it would need to be on the basis that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of today. The appellant accepts that he has no money either to obtain legal representation or, it may be inferred, to pay costs if they were to be ordered against him. 5. A separate factor is that the material contained in the appeal book, including the grounds of appeal and the submissions for the appellant, suggests that significant weight is proposed to be placed on further evidence. Again the appellant was warned by the Registrar on 27 June as to the form in which such evidence would need to be provided and the requirements of s 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). No material has yet been provided to this Court which could be the basis of an application to call further evidence. 6. Counsel for the respondent notes that there is a personal as well as a financial burden which is imposed on the respondent by the continuation of these proceedings. That is a matter which the Court can take judicial notice of. 7. Accordingly, and consistently with the terms of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), it is not appropriate that the hearing today be vacated. The application for vacation of the hearing date is dismissed. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 05 October 2018