Lille Kosteska v Bevan Manthey (Magistrate) - [2013] HCASL 141

LILLE KOSTESKA
v
BEVAN MANTHEY (MAGISTRATE) & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 141
B27/2013

On 3 April 2012, the applicant pleaded guilty before the first respondent in the Magistrates Court at Cleveland to five offences. She was convicted and fined a total monetary amount of $1,000.
On 19 June 2012, the applicant filed an application for judicial review of "judgments and orders" of the first respondent. The applicant also sought review of "a series of claims" made by the second respondent, the Registrar of the State Penalties and Enforcement Registry, seeking payment of $15,278.60 by the applicant for a variety of outstanding matters. On 7 August 2012, Mullins J summarily dismissed the application, finding it to be frivolous and vexatious. Mullins J further held that constitutional arguments and allegations of unlawful acts by successive governments were misconceived.
The applicant sought leave to appeal Mullins J's decision to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland asserting a denial of natural justice, and flaws in Australia's entire legal system. On 10 May 2013, the Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal (McMurdo P, Atkinson and Martin JJ) and awarded indemnity costs in favour of the second respondent. To the extent that the application raised constitutional arguments, those contentions have previously been considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal and by this Court.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court using the same arguments advanced below. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Any appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
4 September 2013 P.A. Keane

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lille Kosteska v Bevan Manthey (Magistrate) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lille Kosteska initiated legal proceedings against Bevan Manthey, the Magistrate, and another respondent in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Lille Kosteska, had previously pleaded guilty to five offences in the Magistrates Court at Cleveland and was fined $1,000. Following this, she filed an application for judicial review of the Magistrate's decisions and claims made by the Registrar of the State Penalties and Enforcement Registry, which sought payment of $15,278.60 from her for various outstanding matters. The application was dismissed by Mullins J as frivolous and vexatious, with the Court of Appeal subsequently refusing leave to appeal and awarding indemnity costs to the second respondent. Kosteska now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court, reiterating the same arguments previously rejected by lower courts.

The legal issues before the Court involved the dismissal of Kosteska's application for judicial review and the refusal of leave to appeal. The key issues revolved around the grounds for dismissing the initial application as frivolous and vexatious, the constitutional arguments presented, and the merits of the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court needed to determine whether the dismissal and refusal of leave to appeal were justified and whether there were grounds for granting special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The High Court found that the lower courts had correctly dismissed the initial application and the subsequent appeal. The Court held that Kosteska's constitutional arguments and allegations against the legal system were misconceived and had been previously rejected. The Court of Appeal's decision to refuse leave to appeal was deemed correct, and the application lacked sufficient prospects of success to warrant special leave. The High Court thus found no basis to doubt the correctness of the lower courts' decisions and refused special leave to appeal.

In light of the above, the High Court directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision affirmed the dismissal of Kosteska's application for judicial review and the refusal of leave to appeal, maintaining the integrity of the lower courts' decisions.

Orders