Koutsogiannopoulos alias Pulos v. Prahales alias Panos

Koutsogiannopoulos alias Pulos v. Prahales alias Panos

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal had only addressed the plaintiff's right to an accounting without ordering any monetary payment; absent a determination of a sum or agreement to contest accounts at trial, there was no amount in dispute and thus no appeal as of right—motion to quash granted and leave to appeal denied.

Citation
[1962] SCR 661
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Xenophon Koutsogiannopoulos alias Pulos; Defendant Respondent Executor and Trustee: Dame Mary Speros Prahales alias Panos; Defendant Respondent Executor and Trustee: Vacilikes alias Kay Speros Prahales alias Panos; Defendant Respondent Executor, Trustee and Individually: George Speros Prahales Panos
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 1962
Procedural Posture
Action for Accounting; Appeal on Jurisdiction / On Appeal to the Supreme Court; Motion to Quash Heard With Merits; Verbal Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Motion to quash allowed; appeal quashed; application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Accounting, Right to Accounting Vs Determination of Sums, Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Code of Civil Procedure Arts. 566 Et Seq.
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts and Executors Appellate Jurisdiction Accounting Right to Accounting Vs Determination of Sums Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal Leave to Appeal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xenophon Koutsogiannopoulos alias Pulos

Plaintiff Appellant

Dame Mary Speros Prahales alias Panos

Defendant Respondent Executor and Trustee

Vacilikes alias Kay Speros Prahales alias Panos

Defendant Respondent Executor and Trustee

George Speros Prahales Panos

Defendant Respondent Executor, Trustee and Individually

Procedural Posture

Action for Accounting; Appeal on Jurisdiction / On Appeal to the Supreme Court; Motion to Quash Heard With Merits; Verbal Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal where only the right to an accounting was determined and no monetary amount was ordered
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted when there is no appeal as of right because no sum was involved
  3. 3 Whether an accounting action's phases permit determination of sums at the initial stage without agreement of parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal had only addressed the plaintiff's right to an accounting without ordering any monetary payment; absent a determination of a sum or agreement to contest accounts at trial, there was no amount in dispute and thus no appeal as of right—motion to quash granted and leave to appeal denied.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash allowed; appeal quashed; application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Motion to quash granted with costs
  • Motion for leave to appeal dismissed (without costs)