LUPCO SLAVESKI (by his litigation guardian SNEZANA SLAVESKA)
Plaintiff
v
STATE OF VICTORIA AND OTHERS
Defendants
---
JUDGE:
KYROU J
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
6 December 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
10 December 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
Slaveski v Victoria
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2010] VSC 569
---
DAMAGES – Aggravated damages; nature and principles for awarding – Exemplary damages; nature and principles for awarding.
INTEREST – Meaning of ‘unless good cause is shown to the contrary‘ and ‘from the commencement of the proceeding’ in s 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).
COSTS – Caldberbank offer – Assessment of costs where the plaintiff is successful in a small fraction of his claims – Rule 63.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) – 23 individual defendants who were jointly represented to be treated as a group notwithstanding that distinct claims were made against them – Adjustment based on deficiencies in successful party’s discovery and record-keeping – Costs payable by litigation guardian.
STAY – Granted to enable a party to consider applying for an order to set off award of damages against order for costs.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
Mrs Slaveska, as Litigation Guardian, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff
For the First Defendant
Mr B Ihle
Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Second to Twenty Fourth Defendants
Mr R Gipp
Russell Kennedy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and summary........................................................................................................ 1
On 1 October 2010, I delivered reasons for judgment (‘Substantive Judgment’)[1] in this proceeding in respect of the multiple causes of action that Mr Slaveski pleaded against the first defendant, the State of Victoria (‘State’), and the second to twenty-fourth defendants, who are present or former police officers (‘police defendants’). The second to twenty-fourth defendants are listed in the schedule to the order that is set out in the appendix to this judgment.
(a)on 13 December 2005, officers Kirkright, Baade, Sadler, Cole, Anderson, Knowles and Wendt (collectively, ‘the seven detectives’) committed trespass to land by remaining in Mr Slaveski’s shop at 10 May Road, Lalor (‘Lalor shop’) for 30 minutes longer than was necessary for them to execute a search warrant;[2]
(b)on 13 December 2005, officers Kirkright and Knowles…
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 Victoria
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 569
Case
[2010] VSC 569
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Slaveski v Victoria involved the plaintiff, Slaveski, bringing an action against the State of Victoria. The dispute centred on claims for damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest and costs. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with resolving these complex issues. The court had to determine the principles for awarding aggravated and exemplary damages, interpret the meaning of certain phrases in section 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) regarding interest, and assess the costs under Rule 63.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), particularly in light of the plaintiff's partial success and the treatment of multiple defendants.
The court meticulously examined the nature and principles underlying the award of aggravated and exemplary damages. It considered the context of the case to determine if such damages were appropriate. Regarding interest, the court interpreted the statutory language "unless good cause is shown to the contrary" and "from the commencement of the proceeding" to establish the period for which interest should be calculated. It also assessed the costs, taking into account the plaintiff's success in only a fraction of his claims and the deficiencies in his discovery and record-keeping. The court decided that the 23 defendants, despite having distinct claims against them, would be treated as a group for the purpose of costs.
The court ruled that the defendants were entitled to a stay to allow them to consider applying to set off the award of damages against the order for costs. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the equitable treatment of all parties involved and the procedural fairness in the allocation of costs. The court's ruling provides clarity on these issues, ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness are upheld in the litigation process.