Lupco Slaveski (BY His Litigation Guardian Snezana Slaveska) v State of Victoria
[2012] HCASL 45
LUPCO SLAVESKI (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN SNEZANA SLAVESKA)
v
STATE OF VICTORIA & ORS
[2012] HCASL 45
M165/2011
On 5 September 2006, the applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against 23 present or former police officers and the State of Victoria ("the State") seeking damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation, trespass to land, trespass to goods, conversion, detinue and negligence. The applicant initially appeared on his own behalf but later appeared by his litigation guardian, his wife. The claims brought against the police officers arose out of 13 incidents that occurred between 8 September 2000 and 7 May 2007. The claim against the State was principally that, pursuant to s 123(2) of the Police Regulation Act 1958 (Vic), the State was liable for any damages otherwise payable by the police officers.
On 1 October 2010, Kyrou J dismissed the claims in relation to 12 of the 13 nominated incidents. His Honour upheld the applicant's allegations of trespass in respect of an incident that occurred on 13 December 2005. The applicant was awarded damages of $27,200 for trespass to land and $1,100 for trespass to goods, for which the State of Victoria was held to be liable. On 6 December 2010, Kyrou J ordered the applicant and the litigation guardian to pay the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Chief Commissioner of Police ("the Chief Commissioner") in complying with a subpoena that had been issued by the applicant during the course of the trial, and to pay the costs incurred by the Chief Commissioner in applying to have the subpoena set aside.
On 25 November 2011, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Harper JA, with whom Nettle JA agreed) refused the applicant's application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against the orders of Kyrou J made on 6 December 2010. The Court of Appeal dismissed as incompetent the application for leave to appeal against those orders. It further ordered the litigation guardian to pay certain costs of the Chief Commissioner and the State, and to give security for the respondents' costs of the appeal.
The materials filed by the applicant in support of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court do not clearly identify grounds for appeal. No question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal is advanced. To the extent that the application raises a matter of practice and procedure, that matter fell within the discretion of the Court of Appeal, and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
W.M.C. Gummow S.M. Kiefel 29 March 2012
0
0
0