Apostolou v VA Corporation of Aust Pty Ltd

JUDGES: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

1. The Appellant's application to adjourn the appeal be dismissed.
2. The Appellant's application for leave to amend the notice of appeal in an unspecified way be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 143 of 2010

BETWEEN: Vasiliki Apostolou (As Trustee of the Vasiliou Family Trust)

Clyde Peter White (as joint liquidators of VA Corporation of Aust Pty ltd)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 704 of 2008

AND: CHALLENGER MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ACN 002 835 592)

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ABN 42 000 001 007)

JUDGES: PERRAM, NICHOLAS & YATES JJ DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter was called on for hearing this morning at 10.15. It has now proceeded to the stage where the appellants' submissions-in-chief have been given, the respondents' submissions have been given and the appellant is some way into his submissions in reply. During the course of delivering those submissions, Mr Vasiliou has applied effectively for an adjournment of the appeal and also for leave to amend his notice of appeal. 2 We do not think that, having regard to the history of the proceedings, it would be appropriate, in the middle of the afternoon on the day upon which most of the appeal has been heard, to adjourn the proceedings. The application to amend the notice of appeal was not made by reference to any articulated ground of appeal and, during the course of argument, the Court indicated that it was not minded to deal with an unarticulated amendment application. 3 In those circumstances the Court proposes to proceed upon the basis that an application to amend has been made to it but to dismiss it upon the basis that no ground of proposed appeal has been articulated. Both applications are dismissed. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Perram, Nicholas & Yates.