Bahonko v Sterjov

[2007] FCA 867

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 867

STANISLAWA BAHONKO v KOSTA STERJOV, SNEZANA STERJOVA, LISA MCEWAN AND LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
VID114 OF 2006

JESSUP J
24 MAY 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID114 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Applicant

AND:

KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent

SNEZANA STERJOVA
Second Respondent

LISA MCEWAN
Third Respondent

LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.If the applicant is in a position to call, and proposes to call, Ms A Brown to give evidence in this proceeding, she file and serve an affidavit stating that proposal, and stating the substance of the evidence which it is intended Ms Brown will give, such affidavit to be filed and served on or before 6 June 2007.

2.Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the orders made by the court on 27 April 2007 be vacated.

3.The respondents file and serve their final submissions in writing on or before 27 June 2007.

4.The applicant file and serve her final submissions in writing on or before 6 July 2007.

5.Subject to any contrary order made by the court, the proceeding be listed for final submissions at 10.15 am on 11 July 2007 with each party being limited to one hour in oral submissions.

6.Costs to be reserved.

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	VID114 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Applicant

AND:

KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent

SNEZANA STERJOVA
Second Respondent

LISA MCEWAN
Third Respondent

LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE:	24 MAY 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Subject only to the possibility of further evidence being called today, the trial of this proceeding has concluded.  On 27 April 2007, I gave the applicant an opportunity to contact a person whose evidence she submitted was important to the case and who she anticipated would have been called on behalf of the respondents.  That person, a former employee of the fourth respondent, Ms Aileen Brown, had not been called by the respondent and the applicant desired to have the opportunity to make an attempt to contact her for the purpose of bringing her before the court.  I required the applicant to file and serve a brief summary of the evidence which she proposed to lead from Ms Brown, and she has done so.  However, the applicant did not call Ms Brown today for the reason, as she explained to me, that she did not know the whereabouts of Ms Brown and had no way of contacting her. 

2. That would have been the end of the matter so far as Ms Brown is concerned, were it not for an affidavit sworn yesterday by the first respondent deposing to attempts which…