Ljupco Slaveski (By His Litigation Guardian Snezana Slaveska) v State Of Victoria and Ors

LJUPCO SLAVESKI (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN SNEZANA SLAVESKA)
v
STATE OF VICTORIA & ORS
[2013] HCASL 84
M15/2013

On 1 October 2010, the Supreme Court of Victoria (Kyrou J) dismissed various claims made by the applicant against the State of Victoria and 23 serving and former members of Victoria Police, save for one claim of trespass. Kyrou J delivered judgment and pronounced final orders on 10 December 2010. The applicant appealed the whole of that decision except in so far as findings had been made in his favour.
On 25 November 2011, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle and Harper JJA) ordered the applicant's litigation guardian to give security for the respondents' costs of the appeal in the sum of $30,000 by 25 December 2011. On 20 December 2011, the Court of Appeal (Nettle and Ashley JJA) ordered that the appeal be stayed pending payment of the security ordered, accepting that the applicant was making all reasonable endeavours to comply with the security for costs orders.
On 1 February 2013, the Court of Appeal (Neave JA and Vickery AJA) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The Court noted that over a year had elapsed since the orders requiring security for costs were made and that the applicant's litigation guardian had failed to provide any part of the security in that time. The applicant's litigation guardian had been advised by the Judicial Registrar that the matter may be struck out if the security for costs orders were not complied with. The Court held that the applicant's conduct in sending bank cheques each in the amount of $5,000 to five judges and the Court's Chief Executive Officer was bizarre and done in flagrant disregard of the terms of the orders. The Court considered that the applicant's prospects of success were very poor and that it would be unjust to the respondents if the matter were to remain unresolved indefinitely.
The application for special leave to appeal to this Court raises grounds not advanced below and makes various unparticularised and scandalous assertions. The application concerns a matter of practice and procedure, and the application of settled principles. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success. Special leave is 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
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court heard an application for special leave to appeal in the case of Ljupco Slaveski, by his litigation guardian Snezana Slaveska, against the State of Victoria and others. The applicant, Mr Slaveski, had previously lost an appeal in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissing his claims, except for one claim of trespass. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as he failed to provide the required security for costs, despite being advised of the potential consequences of non-compliance. The application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed, with the Court finding that the application raised grounds not advanced in the lower courts, made various unparticularised and scandalous assertions, and that an appeal would have no prospects of success.

The legal issues in this case were whether the applicant's appeal should be allowed to proceed, and whether the orders made by the Court of Appeal were appropriate in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's failure to provide the required security for costs demonstrated a lack of seriousness and disregard for the Court's orders, and that it would be unjust to the respondents if the matter were to remain unresolved indefinitely. The High Court agreed with the Court of Appeal's reasoning, finding that the applicant's prospects of success were very poor, and that the orders made by the Court of Appeal were appropriate in the circumstances.

The High Court held that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed, as it raised grounds not advanced in the lower courts and made various unparticularised and scandalous assertions. The Court found that an appeal to the High Court would enjoy no prospects of success, and that it would be inappropriate to allow the matter to proceed any further. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

This case highlights the importance of complying with the Court's orders and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's conduct in disregarding the security for costs orders demonstrated a lack of seriousness and was done in flagrant disregard of the terms of the orders. The High Court agreed with the Court of Appeal's finding, and dismissed the application for special leave to appeal on the basis that it would enjoy no prospects of success. This case serves as a reminder that parties must comply with the Court's orders, and that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of an appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established