Dimitrov v The Supreme Court of Victoria & Ors

The plaintiff, Peter Michael Dimitrov, brought proceedings in the High Court of Australia against the Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Croft of that court, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited, and numerous other defendants. The core of the dispute involved procedural questions concerning the plaintiff's ability to pursue his case, particularly in light of potential jurisdictional issues and existing proceedings. The matter came before the High Court for directions regarding the referral of the case to the Full Court.

The High Court was required to determine several procedural issues before any substantive referral could occur. These included whether section 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) applied to actions commenced in the High Court, potentially precluding the court from granting leave for certain parties to appear. Further questions arose regarding the propriety of referring the matter when extant proceedings, including an application to set aside a default judgment, were on foot, which could render the current proceedings unnecessary. The court also needed to consider whether the proceeding was properly constituted without the joinder of all group members, and whether the plaintiff had a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Victoria, and if so, why that avenue was not more appropriately pursued.

The plaintiff's counsel argued that leave was not required for the fifth defendant to appear and that the matter should proceed in the High Court's original jurisdiction rather than being referred to the Full Court or pursued through the Victorian Court of Appeal. The plaintiff contended that the Supreme Court of Victoria Act did not provide for appeals concerning non-common issues, as was the case here, and that the Victorian Court of Appeal had already determined the relevant "Kable issue" in a way that would render an appeal futile. The plaintiff also argued that the High Court, under section 32 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), was uniquely positioned to deal with all disputed issues, including construction and jurisdiction, in a single, efficient proceeding, which was desirable given the case's status as a test case with limited funding. The defendants, represented by Ms. Gordon, pressed for a process for summary dismissal.