The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd v Romeo (No 6)

[2013] NSWSC 1454

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd v Romeo (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1454
Hearing dates:	1 October 2013
Decision date:	01 October 2013
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Application for further adjournment refused.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - application for further adjournment - refused
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	The Trust Company (PTAL) Pty Ltd (Formerly known as Permanent Trustee Australia Limited) (First Plaintiff) Balmain Fund Administration Ltd (Second Plaintiff) Giuseppe Romeo (First Defendant) Anna Maria Romeo (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr RI Bellamy (Plaintiffs) Solicitors: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Plaintiffs) Mr G Romeo, unrepresented (First Defendant)
File Number(s):	2010/83709
Publication restriction:	None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: There has been another adjournment application today, in circumstances where a Mr Friedlander initially appeared, informing the Court that he was a solicitor who had been instructed, to some extent at least, by Mr Romeo only in the last half hour, he had no instructions to announce an appearance and thus withdrew. When Mr Romeo came forward to appear for himself, he confirmed that he had the court book, but said that he was in a difficult position and could not proceed unrepresented because he cannot read English.

1. I then delivered reasons for refusal of the adjournment application Mr Romeo had pressed yesterday and adjourned shortly, so that the parties could have a discussion about the circumstances and whether an agreed way forward might present itself. Those discussions failed and in the result Mr Romeo pressed another adjournment application, making submissions to the effect that he intended to obtain legal representation, but any new lawyers retained would have to have time to prepare for the hearing and that he was in no position to appear for himself. He also advanced submissions as to the circumstances in which his former solicitor, Mr Phair, came to make the application granted yesterday for leave to file a notice of ceasing to act and to withdraw from the proceedings. By those submissions he disputed matters dealt with in the affidavit Mr Phair yesterday relied on.

1. Having drawn to Mr Romeo's attention that some of his submissions also appeared to depart from what had been advanced on his behalf yesterday by the solicitor he had then engaged, Mr Mattiussi, and explaining to him that he could not press an adjournment application in this way simply by making untested assertions from the bar table, but that he was free to give evidence in support of his application about the matters which he had dealt with. In that event, I explained to him that the plaintiff would be entitled to test his evidence by cross-examination.

1. Mr Romeo declined to give any evidence in support of his application.

1. The further adjournment application was opposed. In the circumstances, it was submitted, it was apparent from Mr Romeo's submissions that he had not done all he could to put himself into a position to be legally represented at today's proceedings. His refusal to give evidence in support of his application was also relied on.

1. By way of response Mr Romeo then said that the court book had been handed to him on 24 September, but that it was of no use to him because he could neither read nor write English. Whether that is so, also appears to be in dispute.

1. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the further adjournment application must be refused. No evidentiary basis for the application has been established. Indeed, to the contrary, the inference from Mr Romeo's refusal to give any evidence in support of his application is that his evidence would not have assisted his case. It does appear, from what he says, that Mr Romeo is in a position to fund legal representation but plainly has not taken the steps necessary, in a timely way, to ensure that the funds are utilised so that he could be represented at the hearing, long fixed to commence yesterday. In those circumstances, the further adjournment application is now refused.

**********