Andrew Vasiliou & Anor v Brendan John Marchesi (as trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Andrew Vasiliou A Former Bankrupt)

ANDREW VASILIOU & ANOR
v
BRENDAN JOHN MARCHESI
(AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE
OF ANDREW VASILIOU A FORMER BANKRUPT)
[2013] HCASL 42
M100/2012

The applicants seek special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissing five applications made for leave to appeal against orders made respectively by Hansen J, Macaulay J, Vickery J, Habersberger J and Emerton J between June 2009 and April 2012.
All of the orders which the applicants sought to challenge related in one way or another to real property which had been held by the Federal Court of Australia to form part of the bankrupt estate of the first applicant, Mr Vasiliou. An appeal and subsequent application for special leave to appeal to this Court against those orders failed in 2008. The Court of Appeal (Warren CJ and Buchanan JA) found no reason to conclude that any of the challenged orders was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant granting leave to appeal.
In this Court, the applicants assert that the Court of Appeal "failed its duty to deliver true and natural [j]ustice" to them.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion of the Court of Appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 April 2013 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Andrew Vasiliou & Anor v Brendan John Marchesi (as trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Andrew Vasiliou A Former Bankrupt), the applicants, Andrew Vasiliou and another party, sought special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. These orders dismissed five applications for leave to appeal against decisions made by various judges between June 2009 and April 2012. The orders in question were all related to real property held by the Federal Court of Australia as part of the bankrupt estate of Andrew Vasiliou. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to deliver true and natural justice by not granting leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Appeal had erred in dismissing the applicants' applications for leave to appeal. The applicants contended that the Court of Appeal had not properly considered the merits of their appeals and had failed to ensure that true and natural justice was administered. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal's conclusion that there was no sufficient doubt about the orders made by the individual judges was correct. The applicants also argued that they had not received proper legal representation during the proceedings, which they claimed further prejudiced their case.

The High Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusion. The Court noted that the applicants did not have legal representation and thus the application fell under the specific rules for unrepresented litigants. The Court held that there was no error in the Court of Appeal's determination that the orders in question did not warrant an appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, following the procedural requirements outlined in the High Court Rules 2004. The Court signed and sealed the order dismissing the application on 10 April 2013.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established