Baloglow v Konstantinidis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S1 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
THEO BALOGLOW
Applicant
and
SIMON KONSTANTINIDIS
First Respondent
LARRIPALM PTY LIMITED (Receiver & Manager Appointed)
Second Respondent
CARLISLE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED (Receiver & Manager Appointed)
Third Respondent
RICVALE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
(Receiver & Manager Appointed)
Fourth Respondent
BALKON PTY LIMITED (Receiver & Manager Appointed)
Fifth Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2002, AT 11.19 AM

____________________

MR T.G.R. PARKER: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Gordon & Johnstone)

MR B.C. OSLINGTON, QC: I appear with my learned friend, MR G.P. SEGAL, for the respondent, if your Honours please. (instructed by Charles G. Roth & Co)

GAUDRON J: Thank you. I hold a certificate from the Registrar who certifies that she has been informed by the solicitor for the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents, that they enter an appearance and submit to the order of the Court save as to costs.

MR PARKER: Yes. The reason Mr Douglas’ name is noted and is not appearing is because this morning the parties resolved their differences in this and related matters. We have consent orders which provide for these proceedings to be discontinued. Those consent orders have been signed by the solicitors for all parties including the submitting party.

GAUDRON J: Very well. Well, there will be orders accordingly, namely, that the proceedings be discontinued and each party pay its own costs of these proceedings.

MR PARKER: May it please the Court.

GAUDRON J: There are, I take it, other agreements beside these?

MR PARKER: There is, I believe, a very lengthy document.

GAUDRON J: I see.

MR OSLINGTON: An agreement similar to one that gave rise to the litigation and hopefully will not give rise to any further litigation.

GAUDRON J: Very well, thank you. We thank you for that, and we will call the next application.

AT 11.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this matter were Baloglow and Konstantinidis. The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The application was heard in chambers by Gaudron J and McHugh J.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria involved a question of law that ought to be reviewed by the High Court. This required consideration of whether there were special or important reasons for the High Court to grant leave to appeal, as contemplated by s 35A of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth).

Gaudron J and McHugh J refused leave to appeal. Their Honours considered that the applicant had not established that the Full Court's decision raised a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant intervention by the High Court. The application did not meet the threshold for granting special leave to appeal, which requires demonstrating that the case involves a matter of public importance or a significant departure from established legal principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established