Stanislawa Bahonko v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

STANISLAWA BAHONKO
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA
[2012] HCASL 46
M7/2012

The respondent commenced proceedings in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking an order that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The proceedings were originally set down for hearing on 6 June 2011. On 2 June 2011, the applicant sought leave to adjourn the proceedings. An adjournment was granted until 27 July 2011. On 26 July 2011, a further adjournment was sought. On 27 July 2011, after hearing oral submissions from the respondent, J Forrest J rejected the application for a further adjournment. The applicant was informed the matter would be heard at 2:15pm that day.
At 2:15pm on 27 July 2011, J Forrest J heard the matter ex parte and found, upon analysis of the history of proceedings instituted by the applicant, that a number of the proceedings could properly be described as vexatious, disclosing no reasonable cause of action or hopeless. His Honour also found that the length of time over which such proceedings were brought and their regularity established that the conduct of the applicant was persistent. Orders were entered in favour of the respondent.
The applicant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 16 December 2011, the Court of Appeal heard an application seeking to set aside the orders of J Forrest J. Section 17(A)(4)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) requires a party appealing an interlocutory decision, which the order of the trial judge was held to be, to obtain leave from the Court. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.
The application for special leave to this Court, accompanying draft notice of appeal and applicant's summary of argument, each filed 10 February 2012, make extensive complaints about the decision of the trial judge and the Court of Appeal.
However, the application to this Court does not advance any ground that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave to appeal is refused.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow
29 March 2012 S.M. Kiefel

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanislawa Bahonko versus the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, heard by the High Court of Australia, revolves around a dispute concerning whether the applicant, Stanislawa Bahonko, should be declared a vexatious litigant under Section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The respondent, the Attorney-General, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant due to the history of proceedings she had instituted. The applicant had made numerous applications for adjournments and had a history of instituting proceedings that were considered to be without reasonable cause or were hopeless.

The central legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal should be granted. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed an application by the applicant to set aside the orders of the trial judge, Justice Forrest, who had found that several of the proceedings instituted by the applicant were vexatious. The applicant contested the Court of Appeal's decision, arguing that there were grounds to overturn the trial judge's findings. However, the High Court needed to determine whether these arguments were sufficient to warrant special leave to appeal.

In evaluating the application for special leave, the High Court considered the arguments presented by the applicant against the decision of the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not advanced any grounds that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court concluded that the application did not present any new or compelling reasons that warranted the intervention of the High Court. Consequently, the application for special leave was refused. The Court also directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the applicant's application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established