Slavica Zegarac v Paul Dellios T/As Dellios West & Co

[2008] HCASL 67

SLAVICA ZEGARAC
v
PAUL DELLIOS T/AS DELLIOS WEST & CO
[2008] HCASL 67
M115/2007

1. This is an application for special leave to appeal to this Court from orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 3 September 2007.  That court was then constituted by North, Weinberg and Jessup JJ.  Relevantly, its orders dismissed an appeal that the applicant had brought from an order made in the Federal Court at first instance by Marshall J.  That order was held to be final.  An application for leave to appeal from another and later order made by Marshall J, on the same day, was held to be interlocutory.

2. These proceedings have a very long history.  The history is conveniently summarised in the careful reasons for judgment of the Full Court, which was unanimous in its opinion, conclusions and orders.

3. We have carefully studied the Full Court's reasons and read the applicant's notice of appeal, the amended application for special leave to appeal, and the applicant's summary of argument. 

4. Although the proceedings are doubtless important to the applicant (and to the respondent) they have no objective significance from the point of view of the law of this country or the other criteria upon which a grant of special leave to the final appellate court of the nation is normally provided.  Nor do we consider that this Court should intervene for reasons of justice in the particular case.

5. On the contrary, we find the reasons of the Full Court, read together with the record, are accurate and lacking in the defects which the applicant asserts.  This is simply not the type of case that would attract a grant of special leave to this Court.  In particular, we are unconvinced of error or that, were special leave granted, the applicant would have reasonable prospects of succeeding in disturbing the conclusions and orders of the Full Court.  The time has come to bring this saga of litigation to a close.

6. All of the foregoing is said upon the assumption that the applicant was entitled in law, notwithstanding the sequestration order made against her in May 2006 (which remains in place) to initiate these proceedings.  Because of the stage at which this Court is determining the matter, and the absence of submissions from the respondent, we do not have arguments, one way or the other, in relation to the applicant's standing.  For the foregoing reasons, the application for special leave is refused.

7. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

M. D. Kirby
27 March 2008 J. D. Heydon