Milan Tomasevic v Department of Education and Training

[2008] HCASL 265

MILAN TOMASEVIC
v
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING & ORS
[2008] HCASL 265
M137/2007

1. Mr Milan Tomasevic ("the applicant") was unrepresented when his claim for compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) came for hearing in the Country Court of Victoria before Judge Coish. His Honour formed the view that an issue arose as to whether the applicant required a litigation guardian. Pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic), s 66, he referred the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to determine whether a guardian should be appointed. He ordered that the proceedings in the County Court be struck out but with a right of reinstatement.

2. In June 2007, the Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant had a disability or, by reason of a disability, was unable to make reasonable judgments about his estate and needed an administrator, or that the making of an administration order would be in his best interests. 

3. Meantime, an appeal by the applicant was filed in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the orders made in the County Court by Judge Coish.  On the return of that appeal on 25 October 2007, the applicant was unrepresented.  The Court of Appeal (Chernov and Redlich JJA) found that the applicant had failed, as required, to file and serve his appeal book.  It also recorded that, by reason of the supervening decision of the Tribunal, the County Court had reinstated the applicant's proceedings in its list.  The Court of Appeal therefore found that any order on its part to reinstate the appeal, as sought by the applicant, would be futile.

4. Instead of returning to the Country Court to prosecute his substantive claim, the applicant has pressed on with his challenge to Judge Coish's original order, now effectively overtaken by the foregoing events.  He seeks to appeal, by special leave, to this Court.  For that purpose he requires an extension of time.  His written case in this Court repeats his claims below, with the addition of a complaint that the Court of Appeal had failed to take into account his self-represented status. 

5. We are unconvinced of any error on the part of the Court of Appeal.  Its decision, in the circumstances, was clearly open to it.  Moreover, it was a practical disposition of an application which had not been prosecuted correctly and had in the meantime been overtaken by events.  There is no prospect that an appeal to this Court would succeed.  Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to bring the special leave application should be refused with the consequence that the application is dismissed.

6. In accordance with Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

M.D. Kirby
22 May 2008 J.D. Heydon