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

[2013] HCASL 84

LJUPCO SLAVESKI (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN SNEZANA SLAVESKA)

v

STATE OF VICTORIA & ORS

[2013] HCASL 84
M15/2013

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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