Slaveska v Elencevski

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COSTS COURT

S CI 2015 0911

STOJANKA SLAVESKA	Appellant
v
DRAGAN ELENCEVSKI	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 MARCH 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 APRIL 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SLAVESKA v ELENCEVSKI
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 127

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Relevant considerations on an application for a stay of execution of a warrant.

APPEAL – Nature of appeal from Associate Justice – Whether Associate Justice failed to take into account relevant consideration in refusing an application for a stay of execution of a warrant – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	In person
For the Respondent	Mr A Sandbach	Filtner & Company Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

1. By notice of appeal dated 3 March 2016, the appellant appeals pursuant to s 17(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 against a determination of Associate Justice Lansdowne made on 19 February 2016.

1. On that date, Associate Justice Lansdowne heard an application by the appellant made by summons dated 18 January 2016 in which the following orders were sought:

(a)An interim order that warrant No. SW150051277 (‘the Warrant’) be stayed pending the outcome of the application;

(b)An order that the Warrant be stayed pending completion of the proceedings in Macedonia which relate to the original proceedings in Australia; or

(c)An order that the Warrant be stayed/set aside pending the sale of the property namely 382 Station Street, Lalor (‘the Property’) by the appellant, and the Sheriffs have no right to sell the Property.

1. On 19 February 2016, Associate Justice Lansdowne handed down reasons (‘Reasons’) and ordered as follows:

1.The judgment debtor's application for stay of execution of the warrant of seizure and sale issued 4 November 2015 ('the Warrant') is refused.

2.        The judgment debtor's summons filed 18 January 2016 is dismissed.

3.The judgment debtor pay the judgment creditor's costs of the summons on an indemnity basis and those costs be recoverable, if fixed pursuant to order 4 or otherwise taxed or agreed, under the Warrant.

4.The judgment creditor has liberty to apply on notice to the judgment debtor for his costs of the summons to be fixed.

1. The grounds of appeal are identified in the notice as ‘Natural Justice, Bias, Failing to take into consideration the relevant law and evidence, denial of human rights and living circumstances, failure to take into account mental health’.

Background

1. The background to this appeal extends back to 1986 and is set out in some detail in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Slaveska v Elenchevski[1] and the County Court proceeding which was the subject of appeal.[2]  A brief summary of the background is as follows:

   [1][2013] VSCA 283 (Warren CJ, Neave and Priest JJA) (‘Court of Appeal Reasons’) (I note in that proceeding Elencevski was spelt ‘Elenchevski’).

   [2]Slaveska v Elenchevski [2012] VCC 311 (Judge Anderson).

(a)In 1986, the appellant alleges that she, through her son as agent, purchased a…