Bahonko v City of Casey

[2009] VSC 443

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:

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

---

---