Bahonko v City of Casey

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 8744 of 2008

BETWEEN:

STANISLAWA BAHONKO	Appellant
and
CASEY CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	DAVIES J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 September 2009
DATE OF RULING:	21 September 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bahonko v City of Casey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 443

---

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for stay of call-over for taxation of costs – Whether consent to adjournment, as opposed to a stay, would amount to an admission that there is merit in the costs order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms S Bahonko (in person)
For the Respondent	Mr D K Shirrefs	Maddocks

---

HER HONOUR:

Ms Bahonko seeks an injunction to stop the call-over, on 22 September 2009, of the taxation of bills of costs in respect of costs orders made against her by Daly AsJ, Williams J and the Court of Appeal. Ms Bahonko also seeks a stay of the orders for costs until the High Court has determined her special leave application from the Court of Appeal decision and pending an application she proposes to make for a grand jury to be convened pursuant to s 354 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Two of the orders for costs were made in applications that Ms Bahonko sought leave to appeal from to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed those applications and the third order for costs was the order for costs made in that proceeding. I am not satisfied on the material before me that I should grant a stay of the orders for costs nor do I consider that the proposed application under s 354 of the Crimes Act 1958 provides any warrant for a stay.

However, Mr Shirrefs for the respondent informed the Court that the respondent would consent to an adjournment of the call-over to a date after the determination of the special leave application. Ms Bahonko resisted the making of such an order on the basis that her consent to an adjournment would be tantamount to an acknowledgement or an admission on her part that there was merit in the orders for costs made against her and of her liability on the bills of costs that are sought to be taxed. I do not accept that submission. Orders by consent adjourning the call-over would not be taken by the Court as such an admission or acknowledgement on her part.

However it is appropriate that the taxation of the costs not proceed before the High Court has heard Ms Bahonko’s application for special leave. Accordingly, I will direct that the call-over not take place until after the High Court has heard Ms Bahonko’s application for special leave.

---

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Bahonko, the applicant, and the City of Casey, the respondent. The dispute centred around an application for a stay of call-over for taxation of costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Bahonko sought to stay the call-over for taxation of costs, arguing that the decision to grant the stay should not be considered an admission of merit in the costs order. The City of Casey opposed the application, contending that granting a stay would indeed amount to such an admission.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the consent to an adjournment, rather than a formal stay, would be interpreted as an admission that there was merit in the costs order. The court had to navigate the nuances of procedural law and the implications of consent orders in the context of cost taxation. The court also considered the practical consequences of its decision on the parties involved and the broader implications for similar cases.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant procedural rules and case law. It determined that consent to an adjournment did not equate to an admission that there was merit in the costs order. The court held that such consent was a procedural step aimed at managing the court's calendar and ensuring fair treatment of all parties. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to distinguish between procedural decisions and substantive judgments regarding the merits of a case. Consequently, the application for a stay of call-over was dismissed, but the matter was adjourned to a later date to facilitate the taxation of costs.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a stay of call-over for taxation of costs was dismissed. However, the call-over was adjourned to a later date, as agreed by the parties, to allow for the taxation process to proceed. This decision provided clarity on the distinction between procedural consent and substantive admissions regarding costs, ensuring that parties could manage their litigation strategies without unnecessary procedural pitfalls.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established