Slaveski v Attorney-General - [2014] VSC 504

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

S CI 5803 of 2012

LJUPCO SLAVESKI	Applicant
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 OCTOBER 2014
DATE OF RULING:	6 OCTOBER 2014 (Revised 8 October 2014)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SLAVESKI v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 504

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Plaintiff a vexatious litigant – Urgent application for leave to commence a proceeding - Whether leave should be granted for lay person to represent plaintiff – Application made by plaintiff’s daughter while plaintiff apparently residing in another country and unwilling to attend court – Relevant discretionary considerations discussed – Application for leave to appear refused – Application for urgent relief refused – Application referred to an associate judge for directions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant
For the Respondent	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

On 25 February 2014, Ljupco Slaveski was declared a vexatious litigant by this court. He has appealed that judgment but his appeal is yet to be determined.

On a date that has not been disclosed by the material, the Federal Court of Australia made a sequestration order against Mr Slaveski. He appealed that order and, I am told, that the appeal is listed to be heard in the Federal Court tomorrow, 7 October 2014.

This morning, Mr Slaveski’s daughter, Stojne Slaveski, filed his application by way of a summons in the Attorney-General’s vexatious litigant declaration proceeding. Ms Slaveski now seeks my leave to appear on her father’s behalf to apply for final relief.

Ms Slaveski informed me that notice of the application was given by telephone to the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office, particularly identifying that summons was urgently before the court today. There was no appearance for the Attorney-General in response to the summons. In the circumstances, that is hardly surprising.

Ms Slaveski seeks an order that Mr Slaveski be given leave to commence a proceeding in VCAT. The proceeding is, in effect, the reinstatement of a proceeding commenced by an application form, apparently handwritten by Mr Slaveski, that was on 19 June 2014 filed at VCAT on Mr Slaveski's behalf by his wife.

The respondent was Rothstein & Associates Pty Ltd. The application sought an order that:

… under the Legal Profession Act, and the Fair Trading Act or the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 that all costs, invoices (which a fabricated) be set aside or void. The pay is my compensation for pain and suffering. (sic)

The application was accompanied by a three page statement apparently prepared by Mr Slaveski. In that statement, Mr Slaveski recounts that Mr Rothstein issued proceedings against him in the Magistrates' Court for unpaid legal fees in an amount of $78,000 to which he filed a defence and also made a complaint to VCAT. Mr Slaveski contends that he was 'manipulated' into moving his complaint to the Magistrates' Court as a counterclaim to the fees claim by Rothstein & Associates.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Slaveski v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Slaveski v Attorney-General [2014] VSC 504
Case: [2014] VSC 504
Decision Date: 6 OCTOBER 2014 (Revised 8 October 2014)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Slaveski, sought leave to commence proceedings against the Attorney-General. Slaveski had been declared a vexatious litigant, and thus required leave to proceed with any civil action. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought leave to be represented by his daughter and to obtain urgent relief, as he was apparently residing in another country and unwilling to attend court. The court was required to determine whether leave should be granted for the plaintiff's daughter to represent him and whether the plaintiff was entitled to urgent relief.

The court considered the discretionary factors relevant to granting leave to a vexatious litigant to commence proceedings. These included the merits of the proposed proceedings, the need to protect the court's resources, and the need to prevent harassment or abuse of the court process. The court noted that the plaintiff had a history of vexatious litigation and had failed to comply with previous court orders. The court also considered the plaintiff's apparent unwillingness to attend court and participate in the proceedings. The court held that the plaintiff's daughter was not a suitable representative, as she was not a legal practitioner and the application did not demonstrate that she had the necessary knowledge or experience to represent the plaintiff effectively. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to urgent relief, as the application did not demonstrate an urgent need for court intervention.

The court refused the application for leave to appear and for urgent relief. The court referred the application to an associate judge for directions. The court held that the plaintiff's history of vexatious litigation and failure to comply with previous court orders demonstrated a pattern of abuse of the court process. The court also held that the plaintiff's apparent unwillingness to attend court and participate in the proceedings demonstrated a lack of willingness to engage in the legal process in a meaningful way. The court noted that the plaintiff's daughter was not a suitable representative and that the application did not demonstrate an urgent need for court intervention. The court held that the application should be refused and referred it to an associate judge for directions.

Orders