Ljupco Slaveski v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

[2013] HCASL 181

LJUPCO SLAVESKI

v

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA

[2013] HCASL 181
M80/2013

1. The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) for an order that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant. The applicant caused to be issued in the proceeding 20 subpoenas variously directed to judicial officers, court staff, a Crown prosecutor, legal practitioners, police officers and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General applied for an order setting aside the 20 subpoenas.

2. The primary judge (Almond J) ordered that the subpoenas be wholly set aside.  His Honour was not satisfied that the subpoenas had any legitimate forensic purpose and held that they were oppressive.

3. The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal was constituted by Weinberg and Priest JJA.  Priest JA dismissed an application that he disqualify himself on the ground of apprehended bias.  His Honour held that no reasonable apprehension that he would not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the matter before him arose from the fact that, in his previous capacity as senior counsel and Deputy Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Victorian Bar, he gave practical and ethical advice to a junior barrister who acted for the applicant.

4. Weinberg and Priest JJA went on to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, holding that Almond J was plainly correct.  Their Honours also rejected as without substance the applicant's submission that Almond J was biased.

5. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The grounds on which he seeks to rely are expressed in terms of "bias", "denied natural justice", "perverting the course of justice", "discriminated due to disability" and similar proposed grounds.  There is nothing to substantiate those proposed grounds.  No error is shown in the decision of the Court of Appeal and the applicant would enjoy no prospects of success in this Court.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
3 December 2013 S.J. Gageler