❓ Question regarding a payment made to a law firm from Treasury related to a case involving the Mavromatidis family and their tenants. The Attorney General's response details the complex legal battle and expresses sympathy for the Mavromatidis family's situation.
AnsweredQoN 132Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Did Ms Karry Smith, the Attorney General’s chief of staff, advise Lawton Gillon Tydde Barristers and Solicitors that Treasury would forward it a cheque for taxed costs awarded against Mr and Mrs E. and G. Mavromatidis in proceedings with Mr Dundan and Mr Mueller, two clients of the firm? (2) Did the Office of the Solicitor General of Western Australia send correspondence to the firm confirming that an ex gratia payment of $11 212.78 had been approved? (3) Did the correspondence include the cheque? (4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(2) Did the Office of the Solicitor General of Western Australia send correspondence to the firm confirming that an ex gratia payment of $11 212.78 had been approved? (3) Did the correspondence include the cheque? (4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(3) Did the correspondence include the cheque? (4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(2) Did the Office of the Solicitor General of Western Australia send correspondence to the firm confirming that an ex gratia payment of $11 212.78 had been approved? (3) Did the correspondence include the cheque? (4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(3) Did the correspondence include the cheque? (4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(4) If so, upon what basis was the payment made? (5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(5) Did the Ministry of Justice make any further contribution towards the payments of certificates of taxation relating to Commercial Tribunal of WA matter No CT/1995-000199 and Local Court complaint No 147 of 1995, and if so, what contributions have been made? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
(1)-(5) I am pleased the member asked this question. He gave notice of it some time ago. I will tell the House a little about these people. I received a letter from Mr Clive Brown, MLA, with regard to these people; and I suspect the only people who could have prompted this question are the people whose solicitors received this money. These people prey on the weak, the elderly, the ethnically-challenged and the disabled. These tenants went into these premises and proceeded not to pay any money whatsoever. When the Mavromatidis tried to remove them, they went to the Local Court. However, the tenants argued that the case could not be heard by the Local Court but should be heard by the Commercial Tribunal. Therefore, despite the complaints of the Mavromatidis, the case was commenced in the Commercial Tribunal, where the defendants then argued that the Commercial Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the matter should be heard by the Local Court. The Commercial Tribunal nonetheless made an order evicting these people, which they then appealed. It seems a bit rough that these people objected to the matter being heard in the Local Court in the first place, then argued in the Commercial Tribunal that it did not have any jurisdiction, and then appealed the decision. The matter then went to the District Court on appeal, and that court agreed with the defendants. What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
What is extraordinary about this matter is that at this stage the tenants were still in the premises. The Mavromatidis had received no rent and had gone through two sets of proceedings, and they were then told in the District Court that despite the fact that these people had argued both ways, they could not get them out of their premises. The difficulty the Mavromatidis then faced was that whereas under normal circumstances they would have been able to get a payment from the suitors fund, no such payment was available for this appeal from the Commercial Tribunal. They then had two alternatives: Abandon all the costs that they had incurred to date, because they had lost the costs in the Local Court, the Commercial Tribunal and the District Court, and go back to the Local Court and start all over again, or appeal. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and they lost that appeal, with the court holding that they had not been entitled to commence the action in the Commercial Tribunal and should have commenced it in the Local Court, where they had first started. These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
These people then faced the terrible situation that they had lost their costs in the Local Court, in which they had correctly started but from which they had been moved out by the magistrate; they had lost their costs in the Commercial Tribunal, to which they had brought the matter as directed and had won, but from which they had then had the matter appealed; and they had lost their costs in the District and Supreme Courts; and they were not entitled at that stage to one cent. Something was wrong and inadequate in our law at that stage, and something was highly immoral about these tenants, because they took any legal view that happened to suit them even though the one view was the opposite of the other. Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Perhaps at this stage the Mavromatidis were a little unwise, but they sought leave from the High Court, and the High Court said some of the most scathing things I have ever heard said against tenants. One of the things it said was that the result was extremely unjust. I believe the legal process was such that the Mavromatidis were let down very poorly. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why not fix it? You are the Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a number of members who will not get their questions asked. Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Hon PETER FOSS: The other reason it was unjust is that these people remained in the premises and succeeded in having an order for costs made against the Mavromatidis, who had no money because they had not been able to get any rent from their premises, and who had incurred enormous costs themselves in being pushed along by the legal system. I was asked by Mr Clive Brown, on behalf of the Mavromatidis, to consider making an ex gratia payment to them to put them in the situation they would have been in had the suitors fund been able to deal with the matter adequately. I took the advice of the Solicitor General and I took the matter to Cabinet, and Cabinet made an ex gratia payment. I believe that is just and right, and it is only small compensation for these people. These tenants have now moved on to another ethic person, an elderly man aged 70 or 80 who cannot speak English, and they are trying the same legal tricks with him. They seem to be the tenants from hell, who go from one disadvantaged person to another. Their behaviour is reprehensible. The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
The reason I have mentioned this is to explain why I will not answer the remainder of the question. I certainly do not intend to give those people who have suggested that the member ask this question the slightest indication of the amount of money that the Government has made available to the Mavromatidis, because I do not for one moment wish to give those people the slightest indication that they may be able to get their hands on any of it. The reason that we paid that money to their solicitors is that they had intended to bankrupt the Mavromatidis because their costs had not been paid. These people are disgusting, and their behaviour is immoral, and I am very pleased that Mr Clive Brown brought the matter to my attention and that the Government was able to right the wrong - to the extent that money can right the wrong. The people who suggested that the member ask this question will not get one bit of information out of me; I do not intend to give them any.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.