R v Slaveski (Appln to set aside contempt orders)

The matter before the court was an application to set aside a conviction for contempt obtained in the absence of the respondent. The application was also to extend the time within which to apply to set aside the orders. The applicant, Slaveski, was a person declared a vexatious litigant. The court had to consider whether the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 applied to contempt proceedings and whether the court had jurisdiction over contemptuous emails sent from outside the jurisdiction. The court also had to consider whether the respondent's mental health was an adequate explanation for his failure to attend trial and bring an application to set aside orders. Finally, the court had to consider whether the failure to appoint a litigation guardian made the proceeding voidable at the option of the handicapped person.

The court found that the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 applied to contempt proceedings, and the application to extend the time within which to apply to set aside the orders was dismissed. The court also found that it had jurisdiction over contemptuous emails sent from outside the jurisdiction. The court found that the respondent's mental health was not an adequate explanation for his failure to attend trial and bring an application to set aside orders. Finally, the court found that the failure to appoint a litigation guardian did not make the proceeding voidable at the option of the handicapped person.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the conviction for contempt obtained in the absence of the respondent. The court found that the applicant had deliberately not attended the trial and had no bona fide defence on the merits. The court also found that the applicant's mental health was not an adequate explanation for his failure to attend trial and bring an application to set aside orders.

The court ordered that the application to set aside the conviction for contempt obtained in the absence of the respondent be dismissed. The court also ordered that the application to extend the time within which to apply to set aside the orders be dismissed.