Bahonko v Crawford - [2012] VSC 567

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

S CI 2010 04919

STANISLAWA BAHONKO	Proposed Plaintiff
v
NARELLE ELIZABETH CRAWFORD & MAGISTRATE J.M. MACLEAN	Proposed Defendants

---

JUDGE:	GARDE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 October 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bahonko v Crawford
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 567

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Application for leave to bring proceedings – Leave refused – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 21(4).

---

APPEARANCES:
For the Proposed Plaintiff	Ms S Bahonko in person
For the Proposed First Defendant	Mr A Castle, solicitor
For the Proposed Second Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

By order made on 16 September 2011, J Forrest J declared Stanislawa Bahonko a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (“the vexatious litigant order”). Subject to certain exceptions which are not presently relevant, his Honour ordered that Ms Bahonko must not, without leave, commence or continue any legal proceeding (whether civil or criminal) in the Court, an inferior court or any tribunal constituted or presided over by a person who is an Australian lawyer.

Prior to the making of the vexatious litigant order, Ms Bahonko had been charged by Constable Narelle Crawford with a series of offences allegedly committed on 7 October 2010. The offences involved assaulting police, resisting police, refusing or failing to state her name and address, wilfully trespassing in a public place and using indecent language in a public place.

The charges were listed for hearing in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on 7 August 2012. Ms Bahonko applied for leave to commence a proceeding seeking an injunction restraining the hearing of the charges against her. Justice Cavanough refused the application.[1]
[1]Bahonko v Maclean [2012] VSC 352.

The charges were heard as a summary criminal proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court over seven days. The Magistrate found the charges proven and convicted Ms Bahonko on 27 August 2012. She was fined $500 in aggregate for all offences.

Ms Bahonko wishes to appeal to this Court against her conviction and $500 fine in this Court, on questions of law pursuant to s 272 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). Section 272(1) grants a right of appeal, without any leave requirement. In the belief that the vexatious litigant order did not require her to obtain leave to commence her proposed appeal, Ms Bahonko attended at the Court Registry on 7 September 2012 and endeavoured to file a notice of appeal. Registry staff informed her that the vexatious litigant order required her to first obtain leave to file her proposed notice of appeal. Although Ms Bahonko did not agree that she required leave, she completed a summons seeking leave and it was issued by the Registry that day.

The summons was listed for hearing on 27 September 2012 in the Practice Court. On that day, Ms Bahonko applied for…

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 Bahonko v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Bahonko v Crawford [2012] VSC 567
Case: [2012] VSC 567
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bahonko v Crawford involved the plaintiff, Bahonko, seeking leave to bring proceedings against the defendant, Crawford, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Bahonko sought leave under section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), which allows the court to refuse leave to a vexatious litigant. The application was based on Bahonko's history of numerous unsuccessful legal actions against various defendants, suggesting a pattern of vexatious litigation. The court was required to decide whether Bahonko's application for leave to proceed with the action against Crawford was vexatious and thus should be refused.

In assessing whether the application was vexatious, the court considered the criteria under section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, which includes the nature of the proceedings, the history of similar actions by the applicant, and whether the proceedings are likely to be frivolous or an abuse of the court process. The court found that Bahonko's previous litigation history, which included numerous claims that were dismissed or withdrawn, demonstrated a pattern of bringing meritless or harassing litigation. Given this history, the court concluded that the application was vexatious and refused leave for Bahonko to bring proceedings against Crawford.

The court's decision was grounded in its assessment that Bahonko's application did not meet the threshold for leave under section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of preventing vexatious litigation to protect the integrity of the legal system and the rights of defendants. The court's decision was final and no further proceedings could be brought by Bahonko against Crawford without the court's leave.

Orders