Legal Research
Cases
Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors

Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors

Case [2007] HCATrans 666 15 November 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2007] HCATrans 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M31 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Applicant
and
KOSTA STERJOV AND SUSANNA STERJOV AND LISA MILLER AND LA KOSTA CHILD CARE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2007, AT 9.20 AM

GUMMOW J: On 7 and 23 February 2007, Jessup J made certain interlocutory orders in applicant's proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the respondent. On 15 March 2007, Ryan J refused the applicant leave to appeal from the orders of Jessup J, and dismissed an application that Jessup J be disqualified from further involvement in the proceedings on the ground of bias.

In light of s 33 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the application for special leave to appeal from the decision of Ryan J is incompetent, and in any event does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court. The allegations of bias on the part of Jessup J are devoid of merit.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details

AGLC: Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors [2007] HCATrans 666
Case: [2007] HCATrans 666
Decision Date: 15 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Bahonko, sought to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning a dispute over the ownership of certain shares. The respondents were Sterjov and others. The core of the dispute involved allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)) and the common law tort of deceit, in relation to the acquisition of these shares.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the Full Court of the Federal Court had erred in its findings regarding the alleged contraventions of the *Trade Practices Act* and the tort of deceit. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the representations made by the respondents were misleading or deceptive, and whether the applicants had relied on these representations to their detriment when purchasing the shares. The question of whether the applicants had established the necessary elements for deceit, including fraudulent intent, was also central.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. Their Honours found that the Full Court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in assessing the evidence. The court determined that the representations made were not established as misleading or deceptive in the manner alleged by the applicants, nor was the tort of deceit made out. The reasoning focused on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the applicants' claims regarding the nature of the representations and the applicants' reliance upon them.

Orders