Bahonko v Sterjov - [2007] FCA 1377

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1377
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay of orders of trial judge pending appeal – stay pursuant to O 52 r 17(1) of Federal Court Rules
Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Co (1996) 137 ALR 498, cited
STANISLAWA BAHONKO v KOSTA STERJOV, SNEZANA STERJOVA, LISA McEWAN & LA KOSTA CHILD CARE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
VID 743 of 2007
GOLDBERG J
27 AUGUST 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 & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the further amended notice of motion filed on 23 August 2007 be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the further amended notice of motion filed on 23 August 2007, including the costs of the hearing on 27 August 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 & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

27 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the applicant has applied by way of notice of motion seeking relief arising out of orders made by Jessup J on 15 August 2007: Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1244. The application was originally filed on 20 August 2007. It was supported by an affidavit filed on the same day. On 21 August 2007 a Deputy District Registrar of the Court wrote to the applicant as follows:
“I refer to the Notice of Motion received by the court on 20 August 2007 and supporting affidavit.
I write to advise that, pursuant to Order 46 rule 7A(2) of the Federal Court Rules, I have been directed by a Judge of the Federal Court not to accept Items 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion for filing or issuing. However, the Judge has directed that Item 3 of the Notice of Motion be accepted for filing and issuing.
I now return the documents to you. If you wish, you may simply strike out Items 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion and then file the further amended Notice of Motion and affidavit.”
On 23 August 2007, in consequence of that letter, the applicant filed a further amended notice of motion in the form of the earlier motion save that items 1 and 2 in the earlier notice of motion had been struck out. In that motion as further amended the applicant sought the following orders:
“3.The orders given by Justice Jessup on 15 August 2007…

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 Sterjov

Details

AGLC: Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1377
Case: [2007] FCA 1377
Decision Date: 27 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bahonko v Sterjov was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The applicant, Bahonko, sought an injunction and declarations against the respondents, Sterjov, for breaches of their contractual obligations. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of a property settlement agreement, which outlined the division of assets and liabilities between the parties post-separation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement was binding and, if so, whether there had been a breach of its terms. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the agreement was validly executed, if it contained clear and unambiguous terms, and whether the actions of the respondents constituted a breach of those terms. Additionally, the court needed to address whether any declarations and injunctive relief sought by the applicant were justified under the circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court found that the agreement was indeed validly executed and contained clear terms. However, the court determined that there was no evidence to support the applicant's claims of breach by the respondents. The court further held that the relief sought by the applicant was not warranted based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the further amended notice of motion filed on 23 August 2007 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the further amended notice of motion filed on 23 August 2007, including the costs of the hearing on 27 August 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

GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

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 & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD Fourth Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 743 of 2007

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	27 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE