Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors

Case [2007] FCA 115

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors [2007] FCA 115

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

JESSUP J
7 FEBRUARY 2007
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID114 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
Applicant

AND:

KOSTA STERJOV
First Respondent

SNEZANA STERJOV
Second Respondent

LISA MILLER
Third Respondent

LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion of which the applicant gave notice on 27 October 2006 be dismissed.

2.The motion of which the applicant gave notice on 5 February 2007 be dismissed.

3.The respondents have leave to file and serve their Further Amended Defence on 25 January 2007.

4.The Further Amended Defence filed and served by the respondents on 25 January 2007 stand as their Defence herein.

5.The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 22 September 2006 be adjourned to 9.00 am on 23 February 2007.

6.The proceeding be listed for trial on 2 April 2007 with an estimate of 3 days.

7.Costs 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 STERJOV
Second Respondent

LISA MILLER
Third Respondent

LA KOSTA CHILD CARE CENTRE & KINDERGARTEN PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

7 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

APPLICANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION DATED 27 OCTOBER 2006

  1. The applicant gave notice on 27 October 2006 that she would move the court on 6 November 2006 for leave to issue subpoenas for the production of documents and to give evidence upon the respondents and others.  That notice was listed when the matter came before the court on 6 November 2006, but was not dealt with then.  Rather, it was adjourned to 9 February 2007 on which date the proceeding was listed for directions.  Recently, because of the volume of business which will be before the court on 9 February 2007, my associate contacted the parties and notified them that the hearing listed for that date would be brought forward by two days to today, 7 February 2007. 

  2. The applicant submits that because the matter was brought forward by two days she is in no position to support her Notice of Motion of 27 October 2006.  I reject that submission.  I assume, as I must, that she was in a position to move in accordance with her Notice of Motion on 6 November 2006.  She was fully aware that the notice was adjourned to 9 February 2007, and the circumstance that the hearing of that notice was brought forward by two days is, in my view, neither here nor there.

  3. The applicant also supported her application for an adjournment upon the basis of her intention to…

Continue reading Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 115
Case
[2007] FCA 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors, the applicant, Bahonko, sought several orders from the court to manage the procedural aspects of the case against the respondents, Sterjov and others. The dispute involves allegations of fraudulent conduct and breach of fiduciary duties, among other claims, arising from a complex commercial relationship. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court included the admissibility and timing of the respondents' Further Amended Defence, the procedural fairness in allowing the respondents to amend their defence, and the scheduling of the applicant's Notice of Motion and the overall trial. The court had to balance the need for procedural efficiency with the rights of the parties to present their cases adequately.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions regarding the timing of the respondents' Further Amended Defence and the scheduling of the Notice of Motion. It found that the respondents were entitled to file and serve their Further Amended Defence on the specified date, and the document would stand as their Defence in the proceedings. The court also rescheduled the applicant's Notice of Motion and set a trial date, reserving costs for later determination.

The orders of the court included the dismissal of the applicant's motions, permission for the respondents to file their Further Amended Defence, the acceptance of the Further Amended Defence as the respondents' Defence, the adjournment of the applicant's Notice of Motion, the scheduling of the trial, and the reservation of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion of which the applicant gave notice on 27 October 2006 be dismissed.

2. The motion of which the applicant gave notice on 5 February 2007 be dismissed.

3. The respondents have leave to file and serve their Further Amended Defence on 25 January 2007.

4. The Further Amended Defence filed and served by the respondents on 25 January 2007 stand as their Defence herein.

5. The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 22 September 2006 be adjourned to 9.00 am on 23 February 2007.

6. The proceeding be listed for trial on 2 April 2007 with an estimate of 3 days.

7. Costs be reserved.

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

JESSUP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JESSUP J

Full text does not contain this section.