JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	20 and 21 June, 14 August, 2, 3, 4 and 16 September 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 February 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Attorney-General v Slaveski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 48	Revised 26 February 2014

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Whether proceedings ‘vexatious’ – Whether ‘habitually and persistently’ instituted – exercise of discretion – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 21.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Knowles	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Defendant	In person
Amicus curiae in support of the Defendant	Mr Glick SC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The hearing of the application........................................................................................................... 2

Section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986......................................................................................... 6

Instituting proceedings................................................................................................................... 8
Interlocutory applications............................................................................................................... 8
Vexatiousness.................................................................................................................................. 9
Proceedings brought ‘habitually’ and ‘persistently’.................................................................... 10
‘Without any reasonable ground’................................................................................................. 11
The Court’s discretion................................................................................................................... 11

The Attorney-General’s material..................................................................................................... 11

Mr Slaveski’s material...................................................................................................................... 12

The proceedings said to be vexatious.............................................................................................. 13

Slaveski & Sky Empire Pty Ltd v Economacis & Economacis (Supreme Court) (proceeding 1).... 14

Slaveski & Sky Empire Pty Ltd v Economacis & Economacis (Supreme Court) (proceeding 2).... 17

Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates (Supreme Court) proceeding 3)................................................. 18

Slaveski v State of Victoria (Supreme Court) (proceeding 4)........................................................ 19
Slaveski v State of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (proceeding 5)...................................................... 23
Slaveski v State of Victoria (Supreme Court) (proceeding 6)........................................................ 25
Slaveski v Melbourne Magistrates’ Court (Supreme Court) (proceeding 7).................................. 25
Slaveski v Magistrates’ Court and Rotstein & Associates (Court of Appeal) (proceeding 8)........ 28
Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates Pty Ltd (Supreme Court) (proceeding 9)................................... 28
Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates (Court of Appeal) (proceeding 10)............................................ 32
Slaveski v State of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (proceeding 11).................................................... 32
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 35

Vexatious proceedings instituted ‘habitually’ and ‘persistently’................................................. 35

Proceedings otherwise relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion.................................. 35

Slaveski v State of Victoria (Supreme Court) (proceeding 12)...................................................... 35
R v Slaveski (contempt) (Supreme Court) (proceeding 13)........................................................... 38
Slaveski v R (Court of Appeal) (proceeding 14)........................................................................... 40
In the matter of an application by Lupco Slaveski for leave to issue a proceeding (High Court) (proceeding 15) 41
Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates (Federal Magistrates’ Court) (proceeding 16)........................... 41
Slaveski v Citygroup Pty Ltd (High Court) (proceeding 17)......................................................... 42
Lupco Slaveski v Paul Smith (High Court) (proceeding 18).......................................................... 43
Lupco Slaveski v The Queen (High Court) (proceeding 19).......................................................... 44

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 45

HER HONOUR:

The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria seeks an order under s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (‘the Act’) declaring the defendant, Mr Lupco (sometimes referred to as ‘Ljupco’ or ‘Lupko’) Slaveski, to be a vexatious litigant. He also seeks an order that Mr Slaveski must not, without leave…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Attorney-General v Slaveski

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v Slaveski [2014] VSC 48
Case: [2014] VSC 48
Decision Date: 25 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General v Slaveski involved the application of the Supreme Court Act 1986, specifically Section 21, which pertains to the designation of a vexatious litigant. The dispute centred on whether the proceedings brought by the defendant, Slaveski, were vexatious, and whether they were instituted habitually and persistently. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining the meaning and application of the term "vexatious" within the context of the statute, as well as the interpretation of the phrases "habitually and persistently instituted." The court needed to assess whether the actions of the defendant met the criteria set out in the legislation for being deemed a vexatious litigant, thereby warranting a declaration under Section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the legislative intent behind Section 21, emphasising the need to protect the courts from being overwhelmed by repetitive and unfounded litigation. The court examined the pattern of Slaveski's legal actions, noting their frequency and lack of substantive merit. It was found that the proceedings brought by Slaveski were indeed vexatious, as they were not only without merit but also pursued in a manner that was oppressive to other parties. The court concluded that the defendant's actions met the criteria of being both habitually and persistently instituted, thereby warranting the exercise of the court's discretion to declare him a vexatious litigant.

Consequently, the court issued a declaration under Section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986, deeming Slaveski a vexatious litigant. This decision restricts his ability to initiate proceedings in the Supreme Court without first obtaining the leave of the court.

Orders