Andrei Vatarescu v Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal from an order made by Gray J on 19 September 2008. The applicant, Andrei Vatarescu, a self-represented litigant, sought leave to appeal against a costs order made in favour of the respondents, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issues before Penfold J were whether leave to appeal was required for an appeal against an interlocutory order, and whether the costs order made by Gray J, and the subsequent order dismissing the appeal against that costs order, constituted interlocutory orders for the purposes of requiring leave. The court also considered the applicant's conduct as a self-represented litigant, specifically his failure to seek an adjournment despite late delivery of documents by the applicants, and his incorrect assumptions about procedural matters.

Penfold J reasoned that an order for costs made in an interlocutory proceeding is itself an interlocutory order. Consequently, an appeal against such an order, and an order dismissing an appeal against that costs order, both require leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant, as a self-represented litigant, bore the responsibility to familiarise himself with basic procedural concepts, and his incorrect assumptions about procedure did not provide a basis for avoiding costs. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to seek an adjournment following the late delivery of documents did not absolve him from liability for the costs of the successful applicants.

Leave to appeal from the decision of Gray J made on 19 September 2008 was refused.