Bahonko v Sterjov

Case [2007] FCA 1556


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1556

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appeal pending in relation to substantive orders and costs orders of a single judge – application for access to transcript for purposes of appeal – leave limited to viva voce evidence to facilitate preparation of the appeal by all parties – application for leave to stay costs orders pending determination of appeal – application for removal of respondents’ legal representatives from participation in appeal – application for leave to initiate contempt proceedings where leave previously denied – where nature of requests scandalous and vexatious

Federal Court Rules O 46 r 7A and O 52 and r 17(1)

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 867 referred to
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1341 referred to
Bahonkov Sterjov [2007] FCA 1377 referred to
Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors [2007] FCA 1555 referred to
Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 128 FCR 353 applied
Paramasivam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369 referred to

STANISLAWA BAHONKO v KOSTA STERJOV, SNEZANA STERJOVA, LISA MCEWAN AND LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
VID 743 OF 2007

GORDON J
8 OCTOBER 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 743 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Appellant

AND:

KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent

SNEZANA STERJOVA
Second Respondent

LISA MCEWAN
Third Respondent

LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GORDON J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 OCTOBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appellant be provided, at the expense of the Court, with a copy of the transcript in an electronic form of the evidence of the following persons before Jessup J in VID 114/2006:

    (1)the appellant;

    (2)Lisa McEwan;

    (3)Kosta Sterjov;

    (4)Esther Keji Matthew;

    (5)Snezana Sterjova; and

    (6)Wieslawa Kurasik.

  2. The notice of motion dated 20 September 2007 is otherwise dismissed.

  3. The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed on 20 September 2007.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 743 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Appellant

AND:

KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent

SNEZANA STERJOVA
Second Respondent

LISA MCEWAN
Third Respondent

LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GORDON J

DATE:

8 OCTOBER 2007

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

APPLICATION

  1. In this matter, the appellant (“Ms Bahonko”) has applied by notice of motion dated 20 September 2007 (“the Notice of Motion”) seeking the following relief:

    “1.Transcripts of proceedings in the matters VID 114/06 and VID 756/06 be made available to the appellant

    (a)in an electronic form; or

    (b)in a printed form.

    2.Orders given by Justice Jessup on 31 August to stay until the appeal is fully determined.

    3.Mr M McKenney and Mr Felix Vitiello to step down from a legal representation in the appeal matter VID 743/07.

    4.

Continue reading Bahonko v Sterjov

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1556
Case
[2007] FCA 1556
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bahonko v Sterjov involved the appellant, Bahonko, who sought a transcript of the evidence given in a previous case, VID 114/2006, to use as part of an appeal. The respondents, Sterjov and others, opposed the motion on the grounds that the appellant had failed to provide adequate reasons for the request and that the request was an abuse of process. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the appellant had provided sufficient reasons for the request for a transcript and if the request was appropriate and not an abuse of process. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant's request was reasonable in the context of the appeal and whether the respondents' opposition was justified.

The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient reasons for the request, as required by the relevant rules of court. The reasons given were considered inadequate and insufficient to justify the need for the transcript. The court also noted that the request was made in bad faith and was an abuse of process. As such, the motion was dismissed. The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs associated with the motion, as the respondents had successfully opposed the motion on valid grounds.

In summary, the court dismissed the appellant's motion for the transcript, finding that it was not justified and was made in bad faith. The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs associated with the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appellant be provided, at the expense of the Court, with a copy of the transcript in an electronic form of the evidence of the following persons before Jessup J in VID 114/2006:

(1) the appellant;

(2) Lisa McEwan;

(3) Kosta Sterjov;

(4) Esther Keji Matthew;

(5) Snezana Sterjova; and

(6) Wieslawa Kurasik.

2.

The notice of motion dated 20 September 2007 is otherwise dismissed.

3.

The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed on 20 September 2007.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GORDON J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.